Author: Keith Evans
Date: 10:11:31 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 08, 2002 at 23:22:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. :) I would if I could have access to his design ;-)
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.