Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:11:19 05/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1999 at 09:48:05, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On May 29, 1999 at 00:21:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 28, 1999 at 19:25:15, blass uri wrote: >> >>> >>>On May 28, 1999 at 18:27:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On May 28, 1999 at 18:15:30, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On May 28, 1999 at 15:08:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>If Hsu enters next year, they will have to have three categories. >>>>>>0. Hsu (they can start polishing the brass now, I think). >>>>>>1. Supercomputers >>>>>>2. Microcomputers >>>>> >>>>>I think that Hsu should be in the same category as Supercomputers. >>>>Why will they even bother to show up then? Unless all of the supercomputers >>>>borrow Hsu's chips as add-ons like IBM did, they would have no chance >>>>whatsoever. >>> >>>I do not agree that they would have no chance. >>> >>>Super Computers are becoming faster every year and even if Hsu has hardware >>>advantage(I am not sure about this) they have chances by doing a better program >>>or by luck. >>> >>>In the last WCCC microcomputer(Fritz3) won 2 Supercomputers(Deep thought and >>>Socrates) and won the championship. >>> >>>It is not clear to me that Hsu will win. >>> >>>I believe that programs can be significantly improved and that there is a chance >>>that in 2000-2002 another supercomputer or even a micro will be better than Deep >>>blue chip. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >> >>to make this short and succinct: >> >> "not a chance in hell..." > >Fortunately, chess players are generally not the sort to resign before a game, >even if their opponents happen to outrate them by a few hundred points. >Otherwise, there wouldn't be much of a tournament. > >Unlike some people, I have a high amount of respect for their achievement. This >does not mean that I think their winning is a foregone conclusion. Conclusions >are what are made after an event, and if the arrangements a team of people make >prohibit them from competing, those arrangements prevent them from winning too, >and of course, from people making conclusions about their play, because they >don't play. > >I expect that if they were playing, they would completely thrash everybody. My >expectation, however justified, isn't really worth squat, because neither is >this trememdously big "if". > >Hsu's company will have different needs than IBM, and I hope this will result in >a lot of games being played that are publicly verifiable by the chess card, with >the likely result that people will be able to infer from its play that DB was >very, very strong. Not being in a position to guarantee such a thing, I won't. >That is a job for Hsu's company. > >Dave My "not a chance in hell" was a response to the last sentence... "by 2000-2002 another supercomputer or even a micro will be _better_ than DB". DB can always lose a game. But in 2002 there won't be a program around that can win one of 10 games vs the thing... Because they will still be 2-3 orders of magnitude slower, particularly if Hsu gets his 10-15 times faster chip redone... That will put them another 3-4 years (at least) ahead of the pack, beyond where they already are.
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.