Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:38:48 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 10:14:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 03:44:45, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >I _believe_ it is possible to search one node and play the best move possible. >But I am not sure it will ever happen. In the case of DB, it seems pretty clear >that faster _was_ better, based on their results against GM players. There is a problem to compare when the top humans of today may have more experience against strong computers. We cannot say that 200M nodes of Deeper blue were better than 2M nodes of Junior based on results. The top players of today may be better than the top players of 1997 because of the possibility to train against strong programs. 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.