Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:29:20 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 18:11:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 17:57:17, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 17:46:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 09, 2002 at 17:19:40, Chris Carson 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. >>>> >>>>OK, I believe that top 5 comercial 97 programs at 200Mnps would beat DB 96/97 >>> >>>I don't. From experience. Going that much faster requires significant changes >>>to the search extensions and evaluation. Otherwise you go N plies deeper, your >>>extensions trigger far too much and the search explodes. >> >> >>My experience in few positions when I gave Movei to search for many hours is >>that the search did not explode. >> > > >Your program is pretty new. Does it do check extensions? one-reply extensions? Yes,Yes >threat extensions? mate threat extensions? No,no recapture extensions? I have some rules of extensions there. passed pawn >push extensions? Only pawn to the 7th rank and only in part of the cases. The more sophisticated you get with extensions, the more >tuning they require to stay "under control". And the more likely that a very >fast machine will tickle them in a way that produces an unexpected explosion. There may be positions when there is an explosion in extensions but it probably does not happen in most of the cases because I did not find it in the few cases that I tried to analyze a position for hours. 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.