Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:22:09 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 16:35:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. There are amateurs that can lose against palm tiger with hardware that is 200 times faster so it is not always significant. The comparison here is not 200M against 1M but 200K against 1K. 200M against 1M make it relatively easier for the program with the better algorithm to compensate for the speed. I am not sure that the 200M is going to win if you give it the algorithm that deeper blue used. 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.