Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:00:13 05/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 10:06:33, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >What i don't understand of Hsu is: if they can connect Deep Blue's >processor >to a main frame, why can't they add it to a PC? > >Processors are just a little bit of sand, nothing more. If you have >already >made more than one processor sucessfully, then it should be easy and >cheap to mass produce it, and put it at a cheap PCI-card. > >I mean few million nodes a second in leafs, that is interesting to play >against! > You've already answered your question. "PC". the DB processor is one thing, then the circuit board that holds these processors and interfaces to the SP2 is another thing. In the case of DB, this "interface" is a VME- bus design, which has nothing to do with the incredible array of PC standards, from ISA, EISA, PCI, etc... So *someone* would have to stop and design a (probably) PCI circuit board for the chess processor, which would take time. And the PC platform is "ever-changing" from 66mhz to 75mhz to 83 mhz to 100mhz... so which bus speed do they target? you get the idea... a real pain... > >You're missing the whole point. I've written my fingers blue, so many >bad and really horrible beginner moves are made by DB. Did you miss >80% of the msg i wrote? Main part is below this line. > >And NO Bob, even with some errors in 8000 evaluation terms it >cannot happen that it plays Bxg6. sure it can. All it takes is one overweight king-safety term that says that the missing h-pawn is really bad. And it might be that all the modifications they did in the last 3 months before the match led to such unexpected moves. But they can be tuned back out... and I still continue to point out that they *beat* Kasparov with their "bad" moves. It would be interesting to see how some of your "better suggestions" would pan out... particularly since any program can find one or two better moves in some positions, but to find good moves for the whole game is quite a bit different. What would you put DiepX's chances at against Kasparov? I'd put mine at "0". So Deep Blue obviously does *something* right because they have won more than one game against him which means that they are *not* playing "garbage"... IE who else has beaten (or drawn) Kasparov in a 40/2rh game? > >ESPECIALLY with 8000 evaluation terms it cannot happen, because >the other say 7800 evaluation terms will remove the fault after several >tens of billion nodes. > >I'm having even more terms in Diep, and sometimes it makes weird moves >because of evaluation faults, but the deeper it searches the more this >gets corrected by the other evaluation terms, backupped by the search, >and corrected because of search like >some programmers might want to do believe us. Currently I'm debugging >and expanding existing, and this really brings a lot. > >I'm doubting the knowledge that is in DB. It makes so many simple >faults which are explained by lacking easy knowledge, that it makes >me laugh a little, although i can forget sponsoring of >chesscomputerevents forever because of >that weak IM Kasparov. > > >2 dubious moves are more than enough to lose a game. I've played >myself games where my opponent or i myself (just little over 2220) lose >because of 1 dubious move; a weak openingspositon like computers >put at the board is already enough. > >And yes, kasparov played so horrible that GM v/d Wiel last Saturday, >after explaining that Kasparov plays tactical himselve like a computer >and >didn't use his maingun: openingspreparation, >called Kasparov's performance: "weak IM level". > >Fact is that DB didn't play 2 dubious moves a game, more like 5 dubious >move AVERAGE a game. (See ICCA june 1997 the report of Seirawan) > >If FIVE horrible moves a game ain't enough to lose a game against a >seriously playing and GM, then i eat my hat. > I'll pass the salt for you. DB has won more games against Kasparov that all the other programs put together. By a factor of *three* in fact... > >This is not true. PV is like Amir published based on 11 ply searches, >and PV no more than 13 half moves at that depth. > please reread my explanation of two facts: (1) they construct the PV from the hash table, which means it is often "short" because things get overwritten before the PV is reconstructed when the search ends. (2) their hardware does 4 plies of non-captures (at least) plus the captures/etc... and this returns *no* PV at all... So at the very best, you can see their PV less the last 4 non-captures + captures, and if the hardware is following checks or whatever, that "hidden" part of the PV can be quite deep. The SP2 is only doing about 7-8 plies of search before handing off these "near-leaf" positions to the hardware. So at *best* you can see about 2/3 of the PV, At worst, a small part... >This is exactly what i experienced myself: if you search 11 ply then >positionally >you simply see not much deeper. Definitely not 30 ply. Then you simply haven't done it right... Because selective extensions do work. They work better and better as you have more hardware and can afford non-important extensions, since it is difficult to tell the difference between those that are useful and those that are not, in a given position. They can search zillions of futile ones, to pick up that one very important one, and they *still* out-search us... > >Of course, mate in 15 ain't no problem, but let's discriminate between >TACTICS, and positional depth. singular extensions is not only about tactics. It can be about positional extensions just as easily. It depends on the singular margin you think you can live with. Most use big numbers to keep cost down. They are not so constrained... > >Now don't make me laugh by saying that they use smart extensions: >If you KNOW what to extend, then why extending, you can play the best >move at once without searching. You miss the whole point. They can *afford* "dumb" extensions. so that if only one of every 100,000 extensions they try produces something useful, they can afford that. *we* can't... we'd be doing 4-5 ply searches. > >>I disagree with the "clearly lacking knowledge".. It drew an ending I'd >>bet every program around would lose. And it found ways to keep things >>interesting... round 1 was a lucky win by Kasparov... one or two tempi >>and things turn totally around... > >Can you base this on evidence, like what moves are so hard to find for >our pc programs at analysis level (to compensate a little >for their fast hardware and get more than 11 ply)? > >Fact is that DB did a bunch of bad moves, which for the major part are >not done by commercial programs. yes... it also did a bunch of *good* moves, most of which are *not* done by commercial programs... > >Greetings, >Vincent
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.