Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:16:25 01/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2003 at 04:30:50, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On January 23, 2003 at 04:19:47, Jorge Pichard wrote: > >>On January 23, 2003 at 00:18:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 23, 2003 at 00:04:18, Chris Kantack wrote: >>> >>>>I have seen the rules and other "tidbits" of the upcoming Kasparov vs. Deep >>>>Junior match. There's even a site where you can bet on the outcome. But what >>>>of the hardware? 2, 4, 6, 8 processors or more???? Processor speed?? >>>> >>>>Any official info yet? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Chris Kantack >>> >>> >>>The only viable choices from the Intel world are a dual xeon 2.8, or a quad >>>xeon 2.0... I don't think anything else comes close. There might be some >>>quad 2.8's in the hands of a select few, but they will probably be hard to >>>get access to. >> >> >>It would be great if Amir gets his hands on a Quad 2.8, but a Quad 2.0 would do >>just fine. Why they have not posted any information on the hardware to be used >>will be simply a surprise :) >> >>Pichard > > >It's interesting to see that people are so focused on the hardware used in these >matches. Of course hardware is important, but I guess that most people (after >some thought ;) that the actual hardware used in a comp-human match is a bit >less important as opposed to a comp-comp match. > >So why are people so focused on the hardware issue? I guess it's a mixture of >"the rest is even less known" and "people like numbers" (see higher-ups in >companies and metrics to see what I mean...) > >Still, I'm a bit surprised that there's for example no discussion at all, what >people think is a particular weakness of Junior against humans. (apart from the >'typical computer weakness of lack of longterm (if at all) planning) Yeah, I >know the engine is not yet available, but it's hardly completely different to >the current public version. (and with discussion about the software I don't mean >silly posts like 'engine X would be better!!! because.. because.. because I say >so!!!' > >:) > >Sargon It's fun to read you with your fresh approach. But such chess questions are seldom in the focus among computerchess experts. Simply because with few exceptions they don't have deep chess knowledge or let's better say playing experiences. Let me make clear my impression of about 6 years. It's kind of confusing to follow the debates. Seldom you read something about chess advances in CC programming but each season you can read the news from hardware frontiers. That is one aspect. The other important aspect is this one. Although it is well known that with special techniques (say exploiting the specific weaknesses in actual progs) the alleged GM players shrink to submasters. Let me give a few conclusions. In science you will meet a general thinking in complex, interrelated dimensions. The reductionism as such is regarded as premature. But if you move among CC fans it's the worshipping of tiny aspects as seemingly knockers and deep truths without looking right or left or up and down. It's sort of childish or pubertarian boasting, if you know what I mean. But now the other side of the medal. The GM players on the human side are those who supported the myth from the beginning in the early 70s. Proof: Just try to find old advertisement from Karpov or Kasparov. Or games of that time between the chess hybrides and GM. You will discover a general trend. And that is the worshipping of the single at that time actual product. With words very near to fraud. Already the first commercial product in 1976 or the like was supported by Karpov - for money of course! - as if that would be a serious chessplayer or partner. Nonsense, because often basic chess rules were unknown to these first products. So it's a shame that every new season the actual products are supported in that same old style. And it is still the same today. Another aspect. More chess related. Almost never you will find an open discussion about the delusion of today's technique of programming. Never it is differentiated between the core of the progs, the engine, and all the surrounding stuff. Because IMO the latter is responsible for the general "strength" of the commercial machines. So that by definition only strong GM are capable of a promissing defense. Amateur players can't have the complex knowledge of opening theory, not to speak of the exactitudiness and the aspects of _own_ analyses. These days you can read open confessions of some programmers that they can enable the "pure" engine to play most openings without books. That is almost the same, as if you state that your program can play like a GM in tournament chess with a time schedule of "almost" zero minutes. You know - this is David Copperfield in CC format. The latter is supported by certain dreamers who - against your message above - present the following reasoning: Say that a 400 Mhz PC plys good chess at three minutes per move which is tournament chess then the next generation, that is next year, the same program ccan play with HALF the time (on stronger hardware of course). So we have 90 seconds. So just do the play for a couple of generations and look in how much time the progs then could play at the same strong tournament level. In a few seconds. Note that this is all calculated by mathematics. Of course the mother if not father as well of all sciences - in the dream of the mathematicians or at least some. I got even information that with 0,6 sec for the whole game (sic!!!) the outcome should the same for a special next generation than for the 400 in earlier days... You know and tomorrow a programmer tells us that he has invented the Perpetuum Mobile. You will see! Rolf Tueschen
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.