Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:11:28 07/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2002 at 01:53:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 19:28:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 18:29:20, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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 >> >> >>Wait until you try a position with a passed pawn promoting, giving check, is >>the only legal move you have to make, and it is also a recapture. In an 8 ply >>search, you _might_ see one in the right kind of position. In a 16 ply search, >>you might see more than one and that may do you in. >> >>Again, as you add extensions, they require more careful tuning. Do you allow >>more than one ply of extensions per ply? > >Yes >I allow more than one ply of extension per ply. > >Uri That opens the door for a non-terminating search, of course. Which is another word for "search blows up".
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.