Author: Matt Frank
Date: 19:28:15 02/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 27, 1999 at 15:36:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >A learning function has nothing to do with how "evolved" a chess program is. >Beyond a doubt it is a good thing to have in a program, but it says nothing >about the state of the rest of the program. I'm sure it would have had a >learning function if it had to compete in an environment where a learning >function would have added any strength. > >The strength comparison on a P2/450 is meaningless, it's like saying that a >Volkswagen Beetle is better than a dragster because if you put a Volkswagen >engine in the dragster, the Volkswagen would do a faster quarter mile. > >bruce Bruce: Although I agree that a learning function isn't the ONLY factor differentiating Deeper Blue from the best micro prog I still argue that Deeper Blue was handicapped by not fitting it's hardware as well as the best micro progs fit their respective hardware mates today. This factor (i.e., more chess playing power per computing speed) and newer algorithms have been extremely important in the "evolution" of programs recently. This is very influential in explaining why Deeper Blue isn't quite as far ahead as some assume (see the post that I responded to for the assumption that I disagree with). Sincerely, Matt
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.