Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:51:35 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 07:35:55, Chris Carson wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. > >Read my last statement again. I said "PC's today", not programs from 97. Yes I >do believe that in a double blind match/tournament the top "PC's (single and >multi-processor chess programs" would beat DB 96/97. I would add that the >Programmers for Fritz, Junior, Tiger, Hiarcs, Shredder, Rebel would have to be >included and independant arbiter used. > >I also agree with Uri's reply: >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?239295 Reread what _I_ said. "if you take _any_ PC program from 1997, and magically find hardware fast enough to make it run at 200M nodes per second, then according to your above statement, you _must_ believe that today's micros would smash that PC in your 'double- blind' match". I don't believe that for a minute. And since DB 97 was stronger than any micro in 1997, you must believe that today's micros are far superior to 1997's micros, based solely on software. That is a crock. Today's programs are stronger. But not a _lot_ stronger, if you run 1997 vs today's programs on equal hardware. Hardware is a _lot_ of the strength gain. And DB had a _lot_ of strength. I don't believe today's programs could beat a 1992 micro program if it were running at 200M nodes per second. That is simply too large a time handicap and the tactics will rule the game.
This page took 0.01 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.