Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 17:37:14 01/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 13:49:03, Dann Corbit wrote: >I think it a bit odd to compare them at all. They use a very different >technology. In other words, "If we could speed up PC's by 1000 times, they >would compete effectively with Deep Blue." is a nonesense statement. We might >as well say, "If bears could fly, they would be faster than eagles." I don't see why it's a nonsense statement. DB plays chess. PCs play chess. They even use approximately the same algorithms to play chess. The only real significant difference is speed. So why shouldn't they be compared? Mitsubishi sports cars use OHC engines. Mazda sports cars use rotary engines. Different design, yet they do the same thing, so people compare them. Of course, most DB vs. super-PC threads are extremely stupid because nobody knows nearly enough about DB to make informed arguments. The only point that I'm trying to make is that the DB evaluation function isn't a mystical black box that does an infinite amount of work. (Some people think it is.) Its terms are probably very similar to a PC program's terms. Probably a PC program with extremely complicated/expensive terms, but still a PC program. -Tom
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.