Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:00:27 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 16:33:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 16:02:44, Uri Blass 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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. >> >>I believe that it may be dependent on the time control. >> >>At blitz I am sure that today programs have no chance against 1992 programs if >>the 1992 programs search 200M nodes per seconds. >> >>I think that at 120/40 things may become different. >>I believe that Hsu simply believed in the wrong assumptions and it made Deeper >>blue to earn less from time relative to other programs. >> >>The main assumptions they believed were: >>1)null move pruning is dangerous at the speed of deeper blue and it is better >>not to use it. >>2)At the speed of 200M nodes per second singular extensions and other extensions >>that deeper blue used are productive to the playing strength of the program more >>than getting deeper without the extensions. >> >>Uri > > >Again, nothing says his assumptions are wrong. You can choose to either >do forward pruning and not look at some moves so deeply, or you can do >selective extensions and look at some moves more deeply. The two approaches >are _identical_ in results, far different in implementation details. Nothing >suggests that either is better than the other. I agree that you can define null move pruning as extensions of the moves that are not pruned but this is not what they did. 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.