Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:20:23 06/02/05
Go up one level in this thread
On June 02, 2005 at 01:23:16, Drexel,Michael wrote: >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 I am also not impressed by the games but I think that Garry was playing clearly better than 2300 level. I did not get the impression that Deep blue was weaker than deep thought(the opposite deep thought did more mistakes that programs of today do not do) and deep thought scored clearly better than 2300 in tournaments. Uri
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.