Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 07:54:41 05/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 1999 at 01:43:10, Chris Anderson wrote: >On May 23, 1999 at 22:44:04, Roger D Davis wrote: > >>It's only one game, certainly, but it doesn't really look like Rebel had much >>understanding of the game from the time it left book (other's appraisals, not >>mine), and Rebel's lose supports the argument that the micros have their own >>weaknesses, and aren't yet a real match for GM players. >> >>So where does that leave previous opinions about a DB board for the desktop? >>We'll have to see what the next months of Rebel-GM games hold, but the market >>for a DB chip is starting to look better and better. >> >>If Rebel consistently loses to the GMs, doesn't this just set the market up for >>the entry of Hsu? >> >>Roger > > Well, is it generally accepted that Hsu's program is as good or better than >the top commercial programs? In other words who's to say that Hiarcs 7.0 on >comparable hardware wouldn't beat DB in a match? It is my understanding that >DB's strength is largely owed to tremendous paralell processing power that >enabled it to calculate up to 200,000,000 pos/sec. > > Chris Anderson Hi Chris: There is some tiny flaw in your reasonning and it is this: DB IS mostly the hardware, so of course everything on it is "largely" owed to procesing power. If Hiarcs is putted to work in comparable hardaware, it would not be any more hiarcs, but a kind of DB. DFB hardware is not like a PC, a general use device, but ot is specificaly designed to calculet chess moves. fernando
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.