Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:50:53 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 20:21:44, Matt Frank wrote: [snip] >The resources that were given to the Deep Blue project were considerable, yet >that doesn't necessarily translate into a added value over software makers >dedicated to their craft. Surely I don't have to provide a list of software >wizards that destabalized markets and terrorized companies many times larger. >Reputation lasts as long as it works in this field. Don't let resource >allocation and reputation cloud your perception. The leap forward in playing >strength by the IBM team is almost totally attributed to faster processing. I do >not underestimate the work Mr. Benjamin and the programmers, yet I am telling >you that the top flight software competitors are in a lot better shape in terms >of producing strong programs with what they have to work with compared to IBM. What new algorithm are the current software vendors using that was not used in Deep Blue? Micro assembly tweaks of existing algorithms mean *nothing* because chess is an exponential process. >Furthermore, how is this for a challenge: Give me a Pentium 2 450MHZ with 256 >ram using Hiarcs 7, and I will play Deep Blue as configured for it's win >against Kasparov in 1997, with these time limits::: Deep Blue 5 minutes for the >game, me 40/2hrs 20/1hr. That is only 24 to 1 time advantage. That should >indicate that Deep Blue does not have nearly as big of an advbantage over the >present programs. Indeed it would indicate that the programs are much more >efficient using their native hardware compared to the IBM program. After all >even 24 times the present speed of a 450 MHZ Pentium still leaves you behind the >speed of Deep Blue. I doubt if you could get them to accept but you would get absolutely slaughtered. I also suspect that IBM could produce real live 6 piece endgame tablebase files (yes, petabytes would be doable for them). This would be child's play, in fact. >I think you don't know where the micros are now because the GMs are hiding. >Anand said to a reporter after his match with Rebel 10, "No more, with >computers." He made himself a very bad deal when he agreed to speed chess (computer's mightiest strength). Computers play very well even at 40/2 but I think he made a choice such as that because of ego reasons. Look how Kasparov felt after losing to a multi-million dollar mainframe. How do you think Anand felt after officially losing to a micro -- fast time controls or not? No matter how far the current programs have advanced, from a purely mathematical standpoint I can tell you that they are no match for deep blue. Deep blue could brute force search farther than current hardware with alpha/beta in the same time frame. In other words, it would be *impossible* to beat that machine with existing hardware.
This page took 0.01 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.