Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 23:49:15 07/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
>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? The answer is because of my theory that I explain >above, and when people discover that the engine in software is not soo strong, >they will understand that the machine that challenged Adams was only pure >processors, the reason of their victory. This sounds completely wrong to me, first Hydra is mainly hardware and last time i checked you can't download a microwave oven :) Second, the "engine" part is designed partly to benefit from fast speeds and lot's of hardware and even if you could take out the chess knowledge in Hydra and make it run as a normal engine, it would not be very strong of course as it needs higher speeds to be effective... It is not "all processors" i bet you that most strong engines would not have any problems beating GNU chess running 200 mln pos/s, in other words the "engine" needs to be strong in the first place, i think if you took Shredder and ran it at 200 mln pos/s it would be as strong as Hydra ;) Jonas
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.