Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:31:09 01/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2003 at 11:13:11, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 12, 2003 at 11:05:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 12, 2003 at 03:43:46, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >> >>>On January 11, 2003 at 14:32:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>Any software program of today outsearches positional Deep Blue of course, >>>>this is clearly the case. >>>> >>>>also we both know that in 1997 programs knew shit from endgames nor middlegame. >>>>That's quite some difference now. In 1997 i remember that beancounters (and DB >>>>was a very good beancounter for its time) did pretty well. >>> >>>As I was trying to say: We know a lot, we speculate a lot, but there is only one >>>method to find out if Deep Blue is worse than the current programs: They have to >>>play matches. >>> >>>In other words: I don't take words as facts. Only scores. >>> >>>Jeroem >> >>I'm not so sure. Of course I'm on your side in the argument with Vincent but >>matches alone might not be satisfying enough. Especially in short exhibition >>shows we have some factors that could be clouding our view. The same now in the >>Kasparov match if it really takes place. The shortness allows the operators to >>manipulate or, let's speak it out, - to gamble. As to prog vs prog matches I do >>fully support Bob's argument that 100x kills! > > >There is an assumption that it is 100x but >I doubt if that assumption is correct. > >Maybe it was only 20M nodes and claiming 200M nodes was part of the >psychological war against kasparov. > >Uri There is _absolutely_ no doubt that the hardware could search one billion nodes per second, peak, or just a hair over that. To think their parallel search dropped that to 20M is simply unimaginable when Deep Thought did so well in parallel search.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.