Which would win... Deep Blue or Apple's Chess?
I'd love to see a 1998 supercomputer (which year was it? 1997?) against a modern consumer computer (Apple's Dual 1 GHz) in a duel to the death, six games of Chess.
Each entity to be given 30 seconds to consider each move.
Everyone allowed to watch on an Apple stream like we watch Stevenotes on.
And Kasparov is the judge!
Nevermind, he didn't want to play at the endof his own defeat, why would he want to watch TWO computers better than him?
Each entity to be given 30 seconds to consider each move.
Everyone allowed to watch on an Apple stream like we watch Stevenotes on.
And Kasparov is the judge!

Comments
deep blue was specifically made for this purpose, and the software is far much more sophistacated. an another point, deep blue was specifically program against Kasparov, in order to destabilize him.
She didn't know how to play chess.
Checkmate.
------------
RosettaStoned
<strong>Last night I met a stripper named Deep Blue.
She didn't know how to play chess.
Checkmate.
------------
RosettaStoned</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes but i am sure that she know how to play others games ..;
<strong><a href="http://www.theonion.com/onion3013/chess.html" target="_blank">Well, that settles that!</a>
HAHA, gotta love the onion
<strong>Technically they're both super computers. Anybody got any tech specs on Deep Blue? Could it pull the new G4's 15 gigaflops?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have read only one specification about it : deep blue was able to evaluate 250 millions positions per second, and deep blue has 256 special processors (don't know their specifications).
I dont know how much calculation you need evaluate a position, and i dont know if chess program can be optimized for altivec.
Altivec = Vector Processing Accelleration
Chess = No Graphics Vectors (or very little)
IT'S SHAMEFUL TO MISS SUCH DETAIL IN A PARODY.