Author: stuart taylor
Date: 05:17:46 01/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2003 at 22:06:44, Terry McCracken wrote: >On January 13, 2003 at 19:08:23, stuart taylor wrote: > >>Let's get it over with already, (all this DB worship)! >>I'm sure we can already say that whichever comes at the top of the ssdf (When >>Deep junior/Junior 8 gets tested, and with necesary correction patches), and if >>you put that program on the best, but regular hardware, I think we can well >>assume it has gone a bit over the DB which embarrassed Kasparov. >>I think we can finally safely assume that this multi-million dollar enterprise >>which made headlines everywhere, is already exceeded with our bedroom (or living >>room) furniture. It was normally 2 years between top existing machine, and level >>of what is commercially available. This will now be a clean 6 years. >> How much more can we dream?! >> >>I think that it's safe to say that top commercial computer chess strength has >>absolutely outclassed itself atleast twice since then. We have gone from Hiarcs >>6 on 266 Mhz. to Fritz 8 on about 2.7 Ghz. I really don't think that deeper blue >>would pose any real threat today. OK, it might be very near the top, maybe >>second or third, and might stay around there for a couple more years due to its >>speed challenge. But what we have now, overall, is surely better. >>S.Taylor > >Where's your data to support your claims? >Stuart, you haven't a clue what you're talking about, and you know it...or you >should! > >Without concrete data, you're talking through your hat. > >Terry I don't have data about Deep Blue, that was guess work. But other facts, I put together to come to an educated assertion. e.g. how much software (and hardware) has improved since then, is just as much as staggering, which might put it above DB. No one else not even Mr Nemeth has any concrete data otherwise, only a few examples which don't prove anything overall. Also, DB was later played on normal hardware and was found to be much weaker than existing programs of then. But I don't know all those details either, but others here might. I could go on for hours with suggested reasons to think that todays pograms should do the trick, and some of those suggestions might be correct. If there were much concrete data, tens of thousands of posts, or even threads in CCC would never have been made. S.Taylor
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.