Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:35:07 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 16:10:46, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 15:26:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 13:38:03, Chris Carson wrote: >> >>>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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. >> >> >>I didn't say you said _anything_ I clearly said that if you took a 1997 >>program, and put it on "magic hardware" do you _really_ think that a program >>/ machine from today would beat it, if this "magic hardware" ran the 1997 >>program at 200M nodes per second? I don't think today's program would stand >>even a small chance of winning any significant numbers of games at that time >>handicap. >> >>And that time handicap is _exactly_ what 1997 DB would hold over _any_ program >>of today on today's hardware... > >DB nps does not equal Rebel nps or Tiger nps or Fritz nps or ... You can not >compare nps to nps. I look at results and there are no games (except human vs >computers) for comparison. You can't compare 1M nps to .5M nps to be sure. But you can _definitely_ compare 1M nps to 200M nps and conclude something about the outcome. A factor of 2-3 in NPS is possibly not significant. A factor of 200 is _always_ significant.
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.