Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:20:12 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 09:57:58, Amir Ban wrote: >On January 24, 2000 at 09:25:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 24, 2000 at 06:17:37, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>I'll bet I have one or two good evaluation terms that Deep-Blue doesn't have. >>>I'll also bet that I have a few that are not practical for them to compute. We >>>are really in a symmetrical situation. It's true that their context is different >>>from mine, but it's equally true that mine is different from theirs. >> >>I suspect this is true of all. But the point still is, that they can do >>_anything_ they want. At zero cost. We can't... With us, it is a matter >>of trading search speed for knowledge content. For them it is a matter of >>trading _nothing_ for knowledge content. Which is a big advantage... >> > >You can't agree and disagree with me in the same breath. This is the opposite of >what I've said. Let me repeat for your sake: > >"I'll bet that I have several evaluation terms that are not practical for them >to compute." > >Amir Let me repeat also: "There is _nothing_ you can do in software that they can't do in hardware in _far_ less time. _absolutely nothing_." That is the benefit of doing what they did in hardware. Never a question of "can I afford this or will it slow me down too much?" Only a question of "is this worth the time it will take to design it?" I can't imagine anything we could do that they couldn't. I can imagine a lot that they could do that I only wish I could do without any time penalty. But for discussion, lets take an evaluation term you think would be hard for them to compute and analyze it. I can probably explain how I would design the hardware to do it. Or we can take my "pawn lever" analysis code which is pretty complicated and discuss hardware to make that happen...
This page took 0.01 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.