Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:08:02 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 17:50:56, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 17:40:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >We do not know that deeper blue was not horribly written. "we" certainly do. Don't know about you, but I know _all_ of the group. It was not horribly written. >It is possible that the algorithm of deep thought was better and the algorithm >of deeper blue included too many extensions because of wrong assumptions. Anything is possible, including a mutant pig sprouting wings and flying. But how _likely_??? :) > >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.