Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 18:38:12 01/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 19, 2000 at 17:52:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 19, 2000 at 17:38:22, Amir Ban wrote: >[snip] >>> Ok, which moves can't be reproduced? And what exactly are the >>>conditions, any program with any settings, or what? >>> >>> James B. Shearer >> >>Move 36 (axb5) of game 2. This move has been discussed and analyzed here ad >>nauseam, on at least 3 occasions so far. > >Ah, the smoking gun! >;-) > >Now, should it be surprising that a machine which can solve all of the NOLOT >problems except 3,6,9 can solve another position which PC's seem to have trouble >with? The machine that solved those Nolot positions did it in 1994, which was before the DB project, I believe. It was much slower than DB. >Since PC's cannot (generally speaking) solve the NOLOT positions, should we also >assume that DB was cheating when it solves those positions as well? PC's can solve the Nolot positions, it just takes a while. If you have a fast program on parallel hardware, you can solve them as fast as DT. If DB's increase node rate can be applied directly, it would solve these much faster than any PC could. This is a goofy thread though. bruce >Perhaps it's just a thousand times faster than PC's, and uses some very clever >extensions. Remember, the published NOLOT results for Deep Thought would pale >in comparison to Deep Blue. > >"Hey, I can't do that, my friends can't do that -- you must be cheating!" >certainly does not wash with me. Especially when it has already been >demonstrated that the machine can solve positions that PC's cannot.
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.