Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:37:47 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 17:00:27, Uri Blass wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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 How can you make that statement? They extended the moves they thought important to extend. Null-move trims the depth on the moves it considers to be bad. They are the _same_... The effect is exactly the same...
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.