Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:32:10 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. absolutely correct. The influence of going 2x faster against a human is minimal. If it is all about search, the human will lose no matter what. But it isn't, yet, all about search, if all you do is search deeply to find lost positions. :) > >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
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.