Author: Graham Banks
Date: 20:56:04 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2005 at 23:32:07, Juan Pablo Naar C. wrote: >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. Yeah - I doubt that a Nimzo 9 or Nimzo 10 (which is effectively what the Hydra software is) would be as strong as Shredder 9 under equal conditions. Graham.
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.