Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 22:23:16 06/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 2005 at 20:57:05, Mike Hood wrote: >On June 01, 2005 at 09:42:11, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On June 01, 2005 at 09:33:09, Mike Hood wrote: >> >>>On May 30, 2005 at 02:02:49, Amir wrote: >>> >>>>Deep Blue could calculate 200 million moves per second. According to what I have >>>>read, Hydra calculates 40 million moves per second. How then is Hydra sees >>>>deeper or is faster than Deep Blue, as is claimed by the authors?? >>> >>>It's pure speculation. Both Hydra and Deep Blue have their fans, so there will >>>never be an agreement. Deep Blue was faster, doubtless, but chess programming >>>algorithms have improved since Deep Blue's days. My personal opinion? I just >>>don't know. >>> >>>There's only one way to resolve the issue. Hydra's programmers should challenge >>>Deep Blue to a match, giving IBM adequate time to reassemble the machine. If >>>Deep Blue fails to accept the challenge, Hydra can claim victory by default. >> >>By this reason every program can claim win by default against Deep Blue. >>Deep Blue stopped to play chess and not other programs. >> >>Uri > >Exactly, Uri. Soon after the victory against Kasparov the Deep Blue computer was >dismantled. The supposed reason was that the hardware was very expensive and was >needed elsewhere. I personally find it hard to believe that IBM was so short of >cash that it had to cannibalize a world famous computer. The real reason is easy >to guess. Someone high up in the IBM hierarchy (much higher than the honest Deep >Blue programmers) was afraid that Deep Blue might lose a rematch against >Kasparov, so Deep Blue had to quit while it was ahead. Deep Blue might have lost >a match against Anand (who was a better anti-computer player than Kasparov), or >may even have lost against a much lower rated player. Worst of all, Deep Blue >might have lost against another computer program. There was only one way to >solve the problem: just tear the machine apart and say "We're the best. We have >nothing to prove". > >Deep Blue will never return. If IBM does come back to compete in computer chess >it will be with new hardware and new software. Deep Blue should be treated the >same way as respected human world champions of many years past. No way I respect it like a former human world champion because it beated Kasparov in an exhibition match with Garry playing at 2300 level. Many Americans are understandably biased. I look at the games and say: I´m not impressed. Michael They were the >best in their day, they might have been good enough to beat today's best >players, but they're dead, so we'll never know.
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.