Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:40:09 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 17:22:09, Uri Blass wrote: >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around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that 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. Yes... But we are not talking about _weak_ programs. We are talking about reasonable programs.. > >The comparison here is not 200M against 1M but 200K against 1K. Not from my perspective. I specifically said pick a 1997 program, but we will run it on some sort of super-hardware that lets it run at 200M nodes per second. Play that against _any_ current program on current hardware and the 1997 program + magic hardware will win every match. > >200M against 1M make it relatively easier for the program with the better >algorithm to compensate for the speed. I don't believe there is _any_ way to compensate for that much speed, unless the faster program is horribly written. Which doesn't fit with either deep blue nor any 1997 micro program. > >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.