Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 17:41:12 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2005 at 16:08:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 20, 2005 at 15:31:46, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>I believe that Hsu has stated that it was running very very markedly slower than >>what eventually beat Kasparov. It sounds like something that you could call an >>earlier version though. >> >>bruce > >They played in the ACM event that same year, and used this in the tournament >bulletin provided to all players/observers: > >"Deep Blue Prototype". Deep Blue software, running on the deep thought 2 >hardware. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe that there was an ACM event in 1995. The WCCC that year was the first we saw of the thing. I do not believe it played another computer officially, ever. If you win the argument that this thing wasn't even DB, DB *never* played against another computer in a game whose score has been made public. Christophe bent rules in order to play it from the Siemens building in Paderborn in 1999 (?), but when IBM figured this out they shut it down. They didn't want anyone being able to conclude *anything*. >What that says to me is that the software search stuff (C code) was what they >expected to use against kasparov in 1996, but the hardware chips were not ready >until just prior to the Kasparov match due to some inductive noise problems, so >they used the deep thought hardware instead. They claimed to be hitting 2M >nodes per second, roughly, in that ACM event. > >I believe that the 1996 DB chip didn't add a lot of features over the last deep >thought chips. But the 1997 DB chips added significant new features (in terms >of hardware evaluation). So many in fact that they were unable to use them all >for the 1997 match since the chips were again "hot off the presses" about a >month before the event started... Yes, this is sounding like your standard hacked up mess, which is even harder to draw any conclusions about. "We would have done better except we had bugs". No credit for hypothetical bug-free projects. >Technically, from chiptest in 1986 to deep blue 2 in 1997, all were "related" >just as all versions of Crafty are related. But claiming that "deep blue" lost >to fritz is a way-big stretch... Of course one has to consider the source of >that statement as well, so maybe no big deal. :) I don't know if the statement is true or not, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. There was apparently some debate about whether to call it DB. Whatever it was that ran in 1995, IBM bankrolled it. bruce
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.