Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:53:16 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 07:43:32, Harald Faber wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 04:04:30, Ingo Althofer wrote: > >>In the log-files of the ICC hour with Feng Hsiung Hsu >>the following passages can be found: >> >>> EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: I heard that Fritz did >>> play a match against Deep Blue in Hong Kong >>> 1995,according to one of the Fritz programmers, >>> is this not true? >>> CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: >>> false advertisement. deep blue does not exist >>> until 1996. the new chip was not completed >>> until january 1996... >>> >>> ... >>> >>> EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from oddg: Back to >>> the WC 1995, There was an entry with the name >>> Deep Blue (Fritz won against DB), did it not have >>> any relations to your Deep Blue? (EeEk: any idea >>> how Deep Blue's name got in there, is this >>> completely false?) >>> CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: deep blue did not play in >>> 1995, since it did not exist yet. >>> it was just deliberate relabeling on the part of >>> commercial vendors, for obvious reasons. >> >> >>I had a look back into the June 1995 issue of the >>ICCA Journal and found the following data which >>might clearify things: >> >>* On p.97ff the contestants of the Hong Kong World >>Championship are described. One of them is >>"Deep Blue Prototype by Feng-Hsiung Hsu, ..." >> >>* On p.102 the Final Standings are given, with >>"Pos.3 DEEP BLUE USA ...." >> >>* On p.130 of the same issue there is an announcement: >> "The ACM Chess Challenge >> World Champon Kasparov to play IBM's DEEP BLUE" >>In this announcement it reads >>"DEEP BLUE is being developed at the IBM ... by >>Feng-Hsiung Hsu, Murray Campbell and Joe Hoane, >>under the supervision of Chung-Jen Tan. An earlier >>version of the system won the 1994 ACM International >>Computer Chess Championship at Cape May, New Jersey." >> >> >>So, the name "Deep Blue (Prototype)" was not a >>"deliberate relabeling on the part of commercial >>vendors" but the official name in 1995. >> >>Ingo Althofer. > > >Hsu... well... he wouldn't be a friend of mine. Everything he says seems to be >doubtful. DB Jr. 10-0 vs. other commercials where NOONE ever has seen the games >except... guess who... yes, Hsu. Now denying the loss in 1995, of course it was >"just a prototype absolutely not comparable with real DB". Nonsense. And >honestly speaking, I do not believe 50% of what he says or writes. It is all >about things noone else has ever seen, proven or whatever. First of all i find Hsu has a lot of guts to do these talks. SEcondly i do believe the 10-0. Programs around 1997 were world champion giving away material. Rebel searches very dubiously. It is a preprocessor. It has some knowledge. The 1997 versions had huge mobility problems. Later Ed fixed this to some extend (not much, it still is its weakness). Rebel always lacked knowledge, though Ed claims from not. Ed is a nice guy but he doesn't play chess very well. He has no rating. Even if it was 2000 rated it woudl be like god in his eyes. The objective truth about programs from 1997 is that they suck ass compared to 2002 standards. Games were decided by blunders. Rebel searched in 1997 in a very dubious way. He had to. There were no alternatives. What i did, getting 7 to 8 ply at 2 minutes a move at a 300Mhz PII, this was no option to Ed. Instead Ed did some dubious things and got like 8 to 10 ply at 2 minutes a move. In rapid this means about 8 ply. Now we take deep blue junior. Even a single chip. I do not believe they had clocked it lower. That it ran at 1/3 clock speed is utter nonsense of course. It ran at full speed of course and they tested of course with deep blue junior. I do not believe the single cpu versus single cpu story. Let's assume it was deep blue junior. It gets 10 ply fullwidth against 8 ply dubious fullwidth. That's 1-0 simply. The real truth is most likely that the big deep blue machine was so ineffective that deep blue junior, despite getting less nodes a second, was getting the same search depth nearly. That's the real truth most likely. I just need to reference to the pathetic parallellism as described very well in paper of 2001. It is really bad. During kramnik-kasparov, deep blue junior was searching with the game. When i asked, i was given answer that total search depth was 12 ply. Same depth like deep blue that played kasparov in 1997. The whole story is veyr simple about deep blue. They focussed upon getting more nodes a second. In 1996 they had a machine getting insane number of nodes a second. Yet they lost pathetically. Then for 1 year they just toyed a bit with evaluation and not losing speed. Because a bigger evaluation, even if it is on a chip, it is slower simply. Some things are not parallellizable very well. If DB1 was a preprocessor without own leaf evaluation as Hyatt once posted here, and DB2 was, then evaluation of DB1 took 1 clock and we know that DB2 quick eval was very few clocks and that the slow eval was 10 clocks. So Hsu struggled for a year to not lose too much nodes a second. That's not easy, i can tell you from my own experience. The only way is to add more processors to your thing. That was done. Then kasparov served them well by playing like an idiot. Just like kramniks free give away point yesterday. Also something he would never do in a serious match.
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.