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 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.