Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 06:07:54 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2004 at 08:41:16, Bob Durrett wrote: > > >The fact is that Hydra whipped a bunch of conventional chess computers at >Paderborn. That fact is indisputable. > >How??? > >How could Hydra, chugging away at the clock rate of a slow snail, win against >the high-nps conventional machines? > >They say "nps isn't everything." But could the truth be "nps isn't anything"? > >Maybe conventional wisdom ["The Earth is flat"] isn't right after all. > >Does anybody understand what happened? I feel that the results were monumental! > >Bob D. I do not really see your conflict. The Hydra software/hardware is an expensive solution to play chess. Why do we have only ONE solution like this ? because all other efforts to build such a special chessmachine are out of the market . most often the hardware was overtaken in the moment it was designed by the usual pc's. the development on the pc-market is IMO too fast for a hardware solution of chess. If the programs would not rely that much on search, they would not have those problems in a moment they have to play against a much faster opponent. Thats the weakness of todays most chess programs. they rely heavily on the search. in the moment there is a program with a superior search (due to whatever: algorithm or hardware) the normal chess programs get outsearched. why do they rely that much on search ? because this has been the most succesful way to get to the top 'til the moment. I believe things can change. maybe the next generation of chess programs is not that much relying on search to cope with machines like hydra too.
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.