Author: Kim Hvarre
Date: 01:40:11 01/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 1999 at 18:15:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 30, 1999 at 11:38:49, Kim Hvarre wrote: >>> > >No microcode in DB-2 at all... but it was certainly done with a 'silicon >compiler' so in a sense, there is some sort of 'program', but not in the form >you might think about normally... Isn't we around technicalities here;) The basics I think is the same - microcode or "chipcoding". > >I have done that with crafty. But notice I said _match_ and not single >game? That makes a difference. Also matters _where_ the game is played. >IE was it just for fun, like many of the old Cray Blitz games were played? >or was it a _serious_ game with something at stake to make the GM play? Hmm., was Kasparov playing at a serious level. Don't think so. But as You know if You regularly play chess at money- or ELO-basis, it's always a matter that means something - not to mention if there's a risk of getting published in front of the world. >You simply don't understand. The DB team was every bit as good as any other >'team' in existance... and DB is the result of that team + time + money. Maybe >Ed or others _could_ have done something (none that I know of are hardware >designers which means it would be _very_ doubtful they'd have a chance). But >at best, _they_ would have come up with 'deep blue'. Doubtful it would have >been something "more"... Let's stop here. You - of all - knows there's differences between "teams" (Crafty = +2300, e.g. Rebel = +2400) and the claim that the _DB-team_ is the very superior, that the world at the time could establish is indeed rather naive. regards/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.