Author: Juan Pablo Naar C.
Date: 20:32:07 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2005 at 23:14:28, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 18, 2005 at 22:47:47, Juan Pablo Naar C. wrote: > >>On July 18, 2005 at 21:35:55, Earl Fuller wrote: >> >>>Well everyone, i did the best i could to get a rematch between Shredder and >>>Hydra. >>>I sent Stefan Meyer-Kahlen an email about such a rematch and he returned a reply >>>saying "I would happily play such a match"___:) However, i recieved the reply >>>from Hydra, i don't know who, it wasn't signed, saying "We are not interested >>>in playing against computer programs anymore, because there is no one that can >>>challenge Hydra",____I even sent emails to IBM, trying to get a reply, but i >>>never got one, also emails to the N.Y.Times, Boston Globe, Etc., thinking they >>>would know someone high up at IBM and want them to answer the challenge from >>>Hydra !__but i never recieved a reply. >>>I still believe that Shredder is the strongest PC program today and the only one >>>than can "challenge", Hydra, but the only way to make this happen would be for >>>the chess community to flood Hydra with emails asking for the rematch, or for >>>someone to put up some dollars,___I don't see that happening, so___ >>>Best regards, >>>earl >> >>Hydra's answer is completely believable. They want the world to know that they >>are #1, because of Michael Adam's evidence. IMHO, I think, that they know that >>very in the deep of those luxury processors lies a not so strong engine that can >>be counter-defeated by a similar hardware in which Shredder could run. The >>highest and most powerful machine available that can be bought is quad opterons >>2.2ghz dual core each (see tytan's motherboards), that in total are 8 processors >>that can easily match against 32 Xeons 3.06ghz. Between, Deep Shredder can run >>in those processors without the need to be re-written (Stefan, correct me if I'm >>wrong) and that machine is about 5,000 dollars, very affordable if Shredder got >>the "company's" support. IMHO I think, why didn't Deep Blue or Hydra released >>their engine as a software? > >because it is hardware and no software. >Deep blue was hardware that was designed to play chess so it was impossible to >release it as software and the same is for hydra. > >You cannot divide it to software part and hardware part because decisions about >the software were based on the hardware. > >Uri Hi Uri, My point isn't mainly that, but to answer to your reply, before programing to the hardware, a software was made, where they programed and created the engine, then they added it as a chip (I'm not entirely sure, something like the BIOS was the engine, but anyways). This is not what exactly happened, but is logical, you can't program directly on a chip :-). If they could care, they would have been released their engine as a software.
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.