Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:30:28 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 02:12:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 08, 2002 at 23:25:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 08, 2002 at 14:04:16, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On July 08, 2002 at 11:36:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 08, 2002 at 06:25:57, Daniel Clausen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 02:28:03, Slater Wold 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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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 ;-) >>>>>> >>>>>>I too am a DB fan. Just like Bob. >>>>>> >>>>>>But I actually agree with you here. I don't think DB did anything >>>>>>*spectacular*. >>>>>> >>>>>>But I also know that Program X will be a _LOT_ stronger on hardware 100,000x >>>>>>times faster than anyone else has. No matter how horrible the software side is. >>>>> >>>>>Sheesh, you guys! Of course they did something spectacular! But it's the >>>>>software/hardware package that plays chess, not just the software alone! And >>>>>they didn't buy the hardware around the corner, as you do with your PC. They >>>>>designed it! >>>>> >>>>>It's obvious that you guys seem to honour work in the software more than work in >>>>>the hardware. Adding feature X in the software is something great, but designing >>>>>DB's hardware which was Y time faster (Y being 200 and more) is "just faster >>>>>hardware". A bit unfair. :) >>>>> >>>>>Sargon >>>> >>>> >>>>OOhhhhh... a good "counterpoint". But it will fall on deaf ears, I >>>>predict. After all, DB was inferior in every way except for speed and >>>>results. And we all know results don't mean a thing.. it is _how_ you get >>>>those results that count... At least to some, apparently... >>> >>> >>> >>>I think that in order to be objective one has to notice that: >>> >>>1) Deep Blue was a terrific hardware that has been able to achieve an historical >>>performance. >>> >>>2) On closer examination the algorithms used were not superior than the ones >>>used in micro programs. >>> >>>I have repeated 1 and 2 several times now. I think I should move on to more >>>productive tasks. >>> >>> >> >> >>We go around and around. I have stated, 1000 times now, that what they >>did, they did _very_ fast. What they did was clearly _not_ "inferior" to >>what everybody else was doing. It was just done within the framework of >>"speed is what we are about and we can get away doing some things because we >>are so fast..." >> >>So they were about speed. Blazing speed. The program was not just a "weak >>piece of software" grafted onto fast hardware. I think it pretty easy to >>conclude that by just taking a very poor search and evaluation at 2-4M nodes >>per second and watch a GM whittle it into small pieces positionally. >> >>It is _obvious_ to me that they had a _lot_ of speed. But they had some >>other things as well... Otherwise we will all be stomping GM players right >>and left. Except they still "have their moments" on ICC... > >Fritz3 on p90 already did good result against GM's in a tournament(win and some >draws in 1994 or 1995 if I remember correctly) when it got an IM norm and it did >not search 2M nodes per second. So? Deep thought was producing a 2650 rating a couple of years _earlier_. Which shows that the gap between Deep Thought in 1992 and Fritz in 1995 was _very_ significant. And then Deep Thought turned into Deep Blue and went 100X faster still. The gap widened seriously at that point... > >Fritz3 had more problems in that tournament against the weaker players because >the weaker player bought it and were prepared(something that the opponent of >deep thought could not do and looking at games is not the same). Ditto for deep thought. It had played dozens of games in comp vs comp events. It played in several open tournaments to produce that 2650 rating. IE it wasn't a "surprise" at all as everyone had access to dozens of games played by the machine... > >The GM's did not prepare because they believed that they are strong enough to >beat the machine without preperation. > >I can imagine that some private program that is slightly weaker than Fritz3 when >we talk only about software with 2-4M nodes per second without being commercial >could get the GM norm at that time. > >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.