Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:36:09 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 15:44:43, Uri Blass wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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 Not "the same" but fairly close. Not unknown like DB2 was unknown.
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.