Author: Matt Frank
Date: 18:40:01 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 21:28:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >5 minutes of deep blue time, at 1000x faster than your machine = 83 hours > >Deep Blue had very good opening books. As I said, they are a database company. >There is no way that a PC would ever have any advantage over such a machine by >the use of some pitiable PC technology. Consider how fast a mainframe can >search through a disk file. I don't know how fast deep blue was but I do know >that some mainframe super computers have a multi-gigabit bus and can do I/O at >500M/sec. (That's an "M" not a "K"). They could create and search opening books >and endgame tablebase files that cannot even be imagined for a PC. Mainframes >are still around, and there is a reason for it. Chess is a searching task, and >Mainframes are information searchers. PC's would be absolutely clubbed even >with stupid handicaps. And why should they accept any sort of handycap anyway? >It's sort of like, "I can beat the best swordfighter in the world if we >blindfold him, make him use his left hand, and make him use a 10 inch rapier." >What exactly does a contest like that prove? > >There is a computer that might stand a chance, but chess algorithms would have >to be completely re-written (probably). The internet is the most powerful >computer in the world, far more powerful than deep blue. But the coordination >of all those nodes would require software that does not exist. And there is >considerable question over whether chess is completely separable in that way. There it is, the definitive statement. Just how strong do you think Deep Blue was? Most observers put it between 2850-3000 when it beat Kasparov in "97. That machine would be beatable or within reach under my proposition. Matt Frank
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.