Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Hardware Advantage

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 12:08:00 11/25/03

Go up one level in this thread


On November 25, 2003 at 08:01:48, Earl Fuller wrote:

>It would appear that Brutus has a slight hardware advantage. So, in order to
>determine which program is really the strongest there would have to be a match
>with compatible hardware. Don't you think ?  We all know that Shredder, Fritz,
>just to name two programs have always been at the top. With Shredders ssdf
>rating of 2812 (and Firitz) it's hard to believe that they would be crushed in a
>match set of games against any human or program. Losing one or a couple of games
>doesn't mean much. In a match of say, 20 games,  that may show which program is
>really the strongest, if they have compatible hardware!  Remember, when your
>that strong, their would be alot of draws, so the match would have to be a long
>one!
>Earl

Truly, this is a tournament to see who has put together the best chess-playing
machine.  It is not a software competition, nor a hardware competition, nor a
chess engine competition.  It is a competition to see who has come up with the
best non-human "thing" which plays chess.  Too bad there are not enough rounds
to reach a definitive conclusion.  Practical limitations apply, unfortunately.

There is an interesting academic issue brought to light by this tournament:

How much is any designer of a "non-human thing which plays chess" handicapped by
requiring that the hardware used be "general-purpose"?  How much better,
theoretically, could such a "thing" be at chess if not handicapped in this way?

Perhaps Vincent faces an even tougher handicap.  He is trying to use a BIG
computer which may have been designed as a special-purpose machine but where the
special purpose is other than chess.  Brutus does not have that problem, since
it seems to have been designed specifically for chess.

I wonder how many of the 400 biggest supercomputers are special-purpose and how
many are designed to be usable for a wide range of different purposes.  One
thing I do not wonder about, however, is: "How many of the top 400
supercomputers are designed solely to play chess?"  It is clear that none are
optimized for chess.  But what if one was?  Sort of a "Chess HAL"?

Bob D.




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.