Author: Chris Carson
Date: 10:38:03 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 13:27:31, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 12:51:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. > >(1) What was the specific W L D record for Deep Blue 95 against the 1995 >programs/hw? It was 1 win 1 loss 1 Draw. (2) What was it for Deep Thought W L >D against the 1997 programs/hw? 0 wins 0 loss 0 draw. Deep Thought did not >play any of the 1997 pc programs. I do not see actual results to support your >statements. Please post the games and results for Deep Blue or Deep Thought >against the 1997 programs. > >Yes, the Programs today on today's hardware would smash the programs that Deep >Thought beat in 1989 on 1989 hardware. In 1989 DT beat Rebel X and Fidelity X >on 1989 harware, so what, big deal. I am sure any of the top programs on todays >hardware would have no problem winning. > >I do not see any "results" based evidence to support the statement that DB 96/97 >or Deep Thought (any year) was stonger than programs in 1997. I only hear that >Deep Thought beat two programs in 1989 and DB was 100 times faster. The >programs/hw in 1997 were close to DB96/97 and the programs today are better >than DB 96/97. I never said that the 1997 programs needed to be run at 200mnps. You said that. I think the 1997 programs were close to DB, not that far behind. 1997 version of Rebel on todays fastest single AMD would beat DB 96/97 in my opinion. DB 96/97 needed the blazing speed, not the commercials. The HW/SW today would beat DB 96/97.
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.