Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:45:05 05/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 1999 at 12:26:12, James B. Shearer wrote:
>On May 20, 1999 at 00:19:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>I see no reason to continue the argument. Because it will be resolved outside
>>our control anyway. He said "it is possible that by 2000"... that gives him
>>19 months to deliver the thing. Either he will or he won't. I've _never_ seen
>>Hsu say "I can do A by B" and then not have "A" running by time "B". I assume
>>he hasn't changed.
>>
>>But that is just my opinion... If it isn't available within 19 months I will
>>be surprised. If it isn't produced ever, I will be amazed. The DB group has
>>_never_ been into "vaporware"...
>
> Well as a reality check, I would suggest rereading Hsu's 1990
>Scientific American article ("A Grandmaster Chess Machine", by F. Hsu, T.
>Anantharaman, M. Campbell and A. Nowatzyk, Scientific American, October 1990, p.
>44-50). Some quotes from the last page:
> "... The machine we have in mind will therefore examine more than a
>billion positions per second, ... . If the observed relation between processing
>speed and playing strength holds, the next generation machine will play at a
>3400 level, about 800 points above today's Deep Thought and 500 points above
>Kasparov's rating record."
> "We believe the system will be strong enough, by virtue of its speed
>alone, to mount a serious challenge to the world champion. We further believe
>that the addition of other planned improvements will enable the machine to
>prevail, perhaps as soon as 1992."
> Obviously with hindsight this was optimistic.
> James B. Shearer
It says "If the observed relation between processing speed and playing strength
holds, ..." It did not. What is your point?
Dave
This page took 0.21 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.