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 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.