Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:44:43 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 15:30:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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... Having games of the thing and buting the thing is not the same. Uri
This page took 0.02 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.