Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:30:59 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 14:27:08, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>On August 30, 2001 at 10:23:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>Let's stick to my boat analogy for the moment. I'm currently running a 28"
>>pitch prob, to reach a top speed of around 85 miles per hour. I want to be
>>able to outrun my friends on top-end, and I _also_ want to be able to beat them
>>in a zero-to-sixty miles per hour race. To do that I would probably run a
>>24" pitch prop for better acceleration. But I have to compromise. best top
>>speed might be 30" pitch, best acceleration might be at 24" pitch. I pick
>>something in the middle to give me the best of both words.
>>
>>Now for deep blue. They had more money to spend than I do. So they go off and
>>build a variable-pitch prop that starts off at 22" pitch, and progresses to 30"
>>at high rpms. Their special hardware solution blows me away in the drag
>>race, it blows me away in the top-end race. And it blows me away at anything
>>in between. Because they didn't have to make a compromise since they were
>>designing hardware to do _exactly_ whatever the task at hand was.
>>
>>In DB, they don't _need_ to make compromises as we do in software programs.
>>Doing so would make no sense at all... They simply do whatever they want,
>>and they make it fast due to the hardware...
>
>It is also possible that since they had an engine a hundred times more powerful
>than yours, they just used the first prop they found, and since it worked, no
>problem.
>
>Now make your engine twenty times faster, but pay very careful attention to what
>prop you use.
>
>Who wins? Their engine is still faster, but perhaps they lost more than 80% of
>their power due to the bad prop.
>
>We don't know, because only one boat is in the water.
>
>This is not to disparage DB. Maybe they had a wonderful prop. Nobody knows.
>
>To use yet another metaphor, I'm perfectly able to sense a door. I can
>understand that it's closed. I can feel it. I can knock on it. And I can come
>to the conclusion that if I walk into it, I'm going to break my nose.
>
>But what we have here is a door that doesn't exist anymore, and you're telling
>me how I'd not only break my nose if I tried to walk through it, I'd wreck my
>car if I tried to drive through it.
>
>I'd prefer to at least be able to knock on it to know that it's not made out of
>paper. Everyone has a right to ask for that much evidence. Philosophy and
>science aren't built on, "This is true, trust me".
>
>bruce
I agree. There are three positions someone can take on the DB issue. I will
list them and then pick the one I like:
1. DB sucks and is worse than today's micros.
2. DB is invincible and is so far above today's micros it is not worth
discussing.
3. There is ample evidence that older versions of the thing were invincible
when they were playing. And the newest version did something nobody else
has repeated, yet (beating Kasparov in a match). This leads me to believe
that they certainly are ahead of today's machines, until one of today's
machines shows some evidence of catching up to them.
I fall in category 3 above. Several fall in category 1. Category 2 isn't
really worth talking about. I would personally be just as happy as anything
if the (1) group would just remain silent. Because (1) is not supportable by
any evidence other than prejudice. I think there is a lot to be learned from
the machine, and it will be learned over time...
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.