Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:44:45 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2004 at 21:27:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Here is a quote from ICC: > >quote on=================================================== >DIEP(C DM)(64): because they claimed having 'solved' chess and people like hyatt >supporting that indirectly (by saying that nothing ever can get better than that >old program) >quote off================================================== > >This is _another_ case where I want to see a _specific_ quote, or a specific >citation for an article where I made that statement (nothing can ever get better >than DB). I've never said it. I've never implied it. In fact, I have been >quoted more than once where I predicted that hardware would eventually take us >well beyond DB's speed/performance. > >My quote was that in 1997, it would take 10+ years for a micro-computer based >program to approach DB's speed. Today I can hit 10M nodes per second on a quad >opteron, 20M on an 8-way. Probably approaching 40M on a 16-way box. That isn't >as fast as DB, but it is in the ballpark. And I still have 3 more years on my >"prediction". Next year AMD has promised a dual-core opteron, so that 16-way >box will instantly become a 32-way box. 80M if there is no clock speed >improvement, yet they say it will be faster via clock as well. So 2007 may be >enough time to hit 200M roughly, if not more. I agree that vincent's claim had no basis but remember that there is a difference between better and faster. I do not believe that humans are close to writing the best software and I believe that improvement in software that is equivalent to being 100 times faster is possible. Uri
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.