Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 02:57:12 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2003 at 23:30:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 26, 2003 at 21:56:18, Omid David Tabibi wrote: > >>On January 26, 2003 at 21:44:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 26, 2003 at 20:02:05, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>> >>>>On January 26, 2003 at 19:59:43, Peter McKenzie wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 26, 2003 at 19:31:48, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 26, 2003 at 19:28:39, Luis Smith wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Full game >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nf3 Nbd7 6.Qc2 Bd6 7.g4 dxc4 8.Bxc4 b6 9.e4 >>>>>>>e5 10.g5 Nh5 11.Be3 0-0 12.0-0-0 Qc7 13.d5 b5 14.dxc6 bxc4 15.Nb5 Qxc6 16.Nxd6 >>>>>>>Bb7 17.Qc3 Rae8 18.Nxe8 Rxe8 19.Rhe1 Qb5 20.Nd2 Rc8 21.Kb1 Nf8 22.Ka1 Ng6 23.Rc1 >>>>>>>Ba6 24.b3 cxb3 25.Qxb3 Ra8 26.Qxb5 Bxb5 27.Rc7 Line >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, let me again repeat the repeated: "humans are still *far* stronger than >>>>>>computers". >>>>> >>>>>You can say it as many times as you want but that doesn't make it true. >>>> >>>>Kasparov's performance does. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>The statement, on its face, is false. Had it said "Kasparov is still *far* >>>stronger..." it might be true. but it said "humans", and as a collective >>>class, that is simply false, and provably so... >> >>When we compare humans and computers, we are interested in the best from each >>camp. Nobody is interested in the result of a match between Omid and Genesis for >>example ;-) >> > >No.. but the logical human "class" to consider is "grandmasters" and for >that class, the computers don't have a long way to go to compete equally >any longer... > >Deep Junior is running on purely ordinary hardware. My dual xeon is about as >fast, based on NPS numbers. I can name a _bunch_ of GM players that would >dispute the "humans are still far better" stuff. A few players might be able >to "make it look easy". But the average run-of-the-mill GM will have to do a >_lot_ of work to beat a computer, not that he can't do it... But the average >GM is not enough better to not have to worry and sweat. NPS vs. different programs is no comparison (as you know...) Deep Junior's 1.6GHz x 8 is roughly 9.44 GHz after factoring in the SMP efficiency loss. This is far greater than your 2.8 GHz x 2 box (including hyperthreading.) The rest.... I agree with.. :) -elc.
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.