Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:57:17 07/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 19, 2005 at 12:11:03, Juan Pablo Naar C. wrote: >On July 19, 2005 at 02:49:15, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>>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 :) > >You can't download it because a microwave oven (lol) doesn't have any digital >BIOS, a pencil can't be downloaded too :-) >I'll give you an example. The playstation is just pure hardware, right? So how >did they make emulators? They could because of the BIOS. > >>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... > >Well, the program can always be re-written (not completely, of course) to run in >casual hardware. I'll give you another example. The first version of The King >ran on a chess computer, then Johan De Koning cared to re-write it to make it >work as the engine for Chessmaster 2000. > >>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 ;) > >Well yes, because the elo difference between GNU Chess and the strongest engines >is alot :-) But if you match a not so weak engine (for example, Arasan) vs i.e, >Fruit, Arasan running in an Athlon 4,800 and fruit running in an Athlon 1,200, >the match wouldn't be so guessable. I think that fruit is going to beat arasan easily if Arasan has 4:1 time advantage. 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.