Author: Kim Hvarre
Date: 08:38:49 01/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 1999 at 01:09:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Hmmm... and once You have Deep Thought it'll be just like the successors; Deep >>Blue, Deeper Blue and what ever. Once You have decided what to "hardwire" on >>Your dedicated chips, it's done and over?!;)) >> >>This discussion has been running from time to time various places. The point >>isn't about the actual formalism transforming one idear (PC-sw) to another >>DB-hw), it's - as mentioned - the likelyhood of doing the "chessstuff" better >>than the DB-team, and it is rather big looking at the thin outcome of all that >>cabinets of hardware and speed! (In contradition to results from the better >>sw-developers). >> > >I don't want to get into a protracted argument. But the 'better software >developers' are _already_ working on the deep blue project. _that_ is too >often overlooked. They aren't just 'hardware designers' by a long shot. Evident - before they make the microcode (?), they have to code. > >>> >>>there is _no_ C compiler for the DB hardware. the chips are vlsi circuits >>>and not something that is 'programmable'... >> >>Right - there are just given as is ... >> >>> >>>exactly the opposite. you take out what you can't afford computationally, >>>to keep your tactical speed at an acceptable level. DB has _no_ such problem >>>and gives up _nothing_ they want to do, they just designed it into the hardware >>>where the cost was _zero_... (speed cost). >> >>Se above. If they really is able to implement infinite amonts of >>"chessknowledge" in hardware, then they ought to, which they obvious did not. A >>bit like racing MC's - you can build a superior (regarding speed/moment(um)) MC >>and you will still loose to the ones, that are more rigid, stable, better >>designed, etc., etc. > >"obviously they did not" yet no other program has beaten any GM in a 40/2hr >time control match? No other program has beaten a 'super-GM' in a 40/2hr >match? And the DB guys aren't very good and didn't have 'very much chess >knowledge'. We've discussed some interesting data that many don't like but >which is public knowledge about DB vs a couple of micro programs where DB was >handicapped _severely_ and still blew the micros out completely... So DB is >doing _something_ right.. Did not search very much, but found this one at 40/2: [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round "?"] [White"REBEL 8.0/P90"] [Black"GM Ralf Akesson"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO"B43"] [ECO "B43"] 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be3 b5 7. Bd3 Nf6 8. O-O Bb7 9. a4 b4 10. Na2 Nxe4 11. Nxb4 d5 12. c3 Nd7 13. Bxe4 dxe4 14. Qg4 h5 15. Qe2 Ne5 16. Rfd1 Qa5 17. Nb3 Qc7 18. Bf4 Be7 19. Nxa6 Bxa6 20. Qxe4 Qc6 21. Qxe5 f6 22. Qc7 Bb7 23. Qxc6+ Bxc6 24. a5 e5 25. Be3 Kf7 26. Nc5 f5 27. f3 h4 28. a6 h3 29. Nd7 Ke6 30. a7 Bb7 31. Nb6 Rag8 32. Rd7 Bc6 33. Rc7 Kd6 34. a8=Q Bxa8 35. Raa7 Bf6 36. Nc4# 1-0 Well, Ralf Akesson isn't a superGM (2510), then again it's not very long time ago I heard the argument; "have never beaten a GM only IMs", so ... The blewout of micros still remains to be proven. Till now it's just claims and rumours. Turn it around - give e.g. _one_ of the "teams" behind Rebel, MCPro, Hiarcs, Tiger,... 5-10 years, $Xmillion and unlimited resources of hardware and hardwareknowledge to play with and then wonder if they would have "stopped" with a DB. Still I think not. >> >>So the poll-question is rather sensefull, perhaps with a little refrasing as >>e.g.: "if the DB-team have had access to the brilliance of the best >>sw-programmers of today, do You then think, they would have come up with a >>better result?" >> >>Yes, is my humble bet. >> > >The DB guys are _far_ sharper than you give 'em credit for. They developed >_many_ of the ideas the commercial programs use (ie singular extensions, and >so forth came _from_ the DB guys and ended up in chess genius, _not_ the other >way around. Ditto for PVS. And other ideas... To make a statement like the >above is _really_ an insult to a bunch of guys that are at least as good as >_anybody_ in the world with respect to computer chess, and they are probably >a lot better than anyone else... At least they have a performance record no >one else has produced to date... Not my intention to be rude. The DB-team _did_ accomplish something unique. Obvious with a lot of bright idears, etc., but see above. If NASA just ends up with a firecracker, one have all the rights to be a little disappointed;) Same thing with the DB-team - they were bound to come up with something strong. The pollqustion was regarding of "we" think it's strong enough in view of the time and money (conditions) spent. kim
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.