Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:08:45 07/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2002 at 11:11:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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". In theory you are right but practically I did not see a position when it happens and it played a lot of games. 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.