Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:22:13 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 13:50:18, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 13:27:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 12:48:58, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On July 08, 2002 at 11:34:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob. >>>>> >>>>>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything >>>>>*spectacular*. >>>> >>>>I totally disagree. Their speed _was_ "spectacular". And that was _the_ >>>>point of Deep Blue, after all. Not the point everyone _wants_ to be the >>>>point of deep blue, but _the point_ the team developed over 10 years... >>>> >>> >>>Here is a crazy thought, why not simulate DB? >>>Given all the papers, I think it should be possible to modify Craft to use the >>>same eval and extensions. We turn off hashing, nullmove, SEE and whatever DB >>>didn't have. Then we find a slow machine for Tiger and a super fast one for >>>Crafty, so Crafty (in DB-mode) has a 200 nps fold advantage. >>> >>>Ok lot of work, but seems this is the never ending story :) >>> >>>-S. >> >> >>This would be great if we had some of the DB guys helping. Unfortunately, >>while they revealed a lot about various parts of DB, there is no single >>comprehensive source paper to use as a reference. IE what are those 8,000 >>unique eval terms in DB (some of those terms actually represent a matrix with >>multiple values so it is actually more complex than that)? Ditto for some of >>their search algorithms. They have given lots of 'hints' about things, but >>significant implementation details are not available. >> >>IE something like trying to build a F-1 by looking at it run around the track. >>There are _significant_ details that are not readily apparent from such >>observations... > >Ahh, slight unforeseen problem. ;) >Maybe you can get a copy of the source, it's not like Hsu has a big use for it >anymore, unless he patented it or plans to some day revive the old legend? >(he could always edit out the "top secret" parts :) > >I'm not even sure such a test would settle the discussion, but at least we would >have an active open source playing machine to work with. > >-S. The source would get us the search for the first 2/3 of the plies in the tree. But what about the hardware search. And the hardware evaluation? Big chunks are missing. I don't want to look at circuit schematics to try to discern evaluation operations. :)
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.