Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:16:12 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 18, 2005 at 23:56:04, Graham Banks wrote: >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 :-). I think that the design decision was different because of the hardware. Things that are expensive in normal software may not be expensive for hydra and the opposite because there was a specific hardware the software was designed to run on. >>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. I think that hydra is not a version of nimzo and it is possible that some evaluation that is in hydra is not in nimzo because doing it in hydra has no price and doing it in nimzo may make the program significantly slower that means weaker. 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.