Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:24:55 07/08/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 23:18:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 14:49:22, Chris Carson wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 14:26:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 08, 2002 at 12:36:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 08, 2002 at 12:15:06, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 11:32:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 00:32:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 20:15:06, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king >>>>>>>>>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Yes, that looks like the best thing to try and work on, doesn't it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If not, can I ask two questions?: >>>>>>>>1)What should be done during the near future to push computer elo forward as >>>>>>>>much as possible? >>>>>>>>2)If Deeper blue was really much stronger than todays tops, what was that due >>>>>>>>to? Better long-term planning? Seeing deeper? >>>>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Huge speed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It was doing most things worse than the best micro programs, but it was doing it >>>>>>>so fast that it was eventually stronger. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hum... Let me rephrase for the sensitive people out there. There was nothing >>>>>>>Deep Blue did better than the best micro programs. But it was so fast that it >>>>>>>allowed it to hide its defficiencies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Shit. That's not very diplomatic either. Let's try again: Deep Blue was build >>>>>>>around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that >>>>>>>nobody noticed until their creators published their paper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Oops... OK, once again: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Bob likes Deep Blue a lot, and that should be a reason good enough to convince >>>>>>>you that it was well designed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Christophe ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Er... excepting one game by Fritz in 1995, when was the last time you saw >>>>>>any micro beat any predecessor of deep blue? When was the last time _your_ >>>>>>program beat or drew them? Etc... >>>>>> >>>>>>Results speak far louder than prejudice... >>>>> >>>>>Results can only prove that they were better than their opponents but this is >>>>>not the question. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>That is the problem. That was _the_ question. But since the answer is >>>>clearly known, everybody wants to change the question to something that would >>>>try to make deep blue look "less" than what it really was. But it was >>>>unbeatable, considering that it lost to one micro in almost 10 years of >>>>competition. Nobody _else_ has ever come close to that kind of dominance. >>>> >>>>I think it funny that _now_ the question becomes "was their search optimal"? >>>>Implying that current micros _are_. Which is a joke. Both have enough holes >>>>to supply a swiss cheese factory for years. The concept of "optimal" is a >>>>joke. The concept of "results" is the only scientific way to measure the >>>>programs against each other. The rest is only subjective opinion. >>> >>> >>> >>>There has been a big smoke fog spread around Deep Blue. >>> >>>At the time of the Kasparov match, we have been told that: >>> >>>1) it was extremely fast. >>>2) it had much more knowledge than any other program around. >>>3) it was using some revolutionnary search techniques. >>> >>>Now that we are able to see more clearly what it was, it turns out that: >>> >>>1) its superiority came from its speed. >>>2) the rest was nothing new, and we are still trying to figure out what part was >>>actually superior to what the best micro programs are doing. >>> >>>I don't think that noticing the above is against the interest of science. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I will be happy to publish the steps to pass muster for human (including GM's) >>experiments. One quick note is that any "scientific" test to be valid must be >>reliable/published so that it can be shown to be repeatable by an independant >>scientist. >> >>The DB project was a secret thing, it was very nice " h/w technology", but I do >>not consider much about DB to be related to science. I am not sure the DB >>results are reliable, I would expect significantly different results if the >>Human GM played a few more game (say 100 prep like the 2700 GM had against Rebel >>recently). I expect DB 1996/97 would get beat by the PC's today in a "true" >>double blind match/tournament. > > >You were doing OK until that last sentence. Do you _really_ think you could >take _any_ program from 1997, run it at 200M nodes per second, and that program >would lose to today's micro programs at 1M nodes per second. I _hope_ you don't >believe that. And yet we _know_ that DB 97 was certainly stronger than any >1997 micro, because deep thought was stronger than any micro of its time and >DB took a quantum leap 100X faster than Deep Thought. You assume that 100X faster for deeper blue is the same as 100xfaster for the top programs of 1997. I suspect that it is not the case and the programs of 1997 earn more from time thanks to their search algorithm when the deep blue team simply believed in wrong assumptions(for example null move pruning is too dangerous). I read that Hsu tried it and did not like the result and I guess that he has some bug in the implementation. Uri
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.