Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:25:38 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 00:54:39, Keith Evans wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 00:31:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 28, 2003 at 20:59:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>It is like comparing a sniper rifle from 2003 with a sniper rifle from world war >>>1. >>> >>>Distances they shot at in world war 1 and 2 with sniper rifles must have been a >>>few hundreds of meters. >> >>In WW1 my grandfather was a sniper. He shot at ranges up to 1000 yards. >> >>In WW2 my father was a sniper. He shot at ranges up to 1000 yards. >> >>Today, a neighbor down the street is a sniper. He shoots at ranges up to 1000 >>yards. >> >>_nobody_ shoots a sniper rifle at ranges of "kilometers" today. "kilometer" >>perhaps. With an occasional attempt at up to 2km with a big 50 cal "rifle". >> > >Supposedly Gunnery Sergeant Hathcock took out an NVA at 2500 yards with a .50 >caliber machine gun. A friend got into the whole "Marine Sniper" scene and it >was a little scary. Nice skill to have if you need it, but it scares me when >people fantasize about it. (Especially when the word "safety" is spelled >incorrectly at the range ;-) > >>This is just another area where you know nothing, but write as though you are >>an expert. >> >>BTW, Hsu's move generator is _not_ a lot better than Belle. All you have to >>do is read his paper to see what he did... >Hsu did add some modes which Belle did not have. For example finding checking, >check evasion, and attacking moves. He hints at some other things like >generating moves for pruning but this is very vague. He may have handled those It is not vague. Read his writings in artificial intelligence. He's doing no progress pruning in hardware. Also it seems to forward prune last few plies in hardware too. In fact it is very clever to forward prune in hardware, even though it must be rude code. Note that this forward pruning i refer to (so not the progress pruning) is not doing in move generator. >basic special case moves (castling, ep captures) more elegantly, but it's hard >to tell without seeing the implementation details of each. Hsu also added >hardware repetition detection which is not part of the basic move generator >logic, but if you group it with movegen just for the sake of argument then it's >a noteworthy improvement. Maybe the adjective that Vincent used was a little Look we can discuss long, but without repetition detection you are at the absolute beginners level from software viewpoint. Especially when doing checks in qsearch doing repetition detection is very important. It is a sequential clock though for the search. So it slows you down quite something. >extreme, but this statement doesn't bother me too much. People do as if deep blue is a holy thing. Which ain't true. It's gnuchess in hardware. Now in 1997 that was of course a magnificent achievement. Compliments to Hsu for that. I have said it a lot. Imagine how hard his job was. And getting it a bit parallel to work. AND in hardware at tens of millions of nodes a second, which is what the sponsor wanted. Also we have the statement of Hyatt that the old deep blue 1 was a very poor piece square table program. So going from a very poor piece square table program to something that is at the gnuchess level is really a *major* step forward. Note that to get 10-11 ply the 1998 versions of zarkov (of course the improved gnuchess version, as John Stanback privately worked on at gnuchess) needed like 1 hour to 2 hours a move. So that just shows how good the job from Hsu was. Note that Zarkov was at the time one of the stronger programs on the planet. So putting gnuchess evaluation and ideas in hardware was not at all a bad idea! The qsearch and the extensions were done way smarter though, which means that Deep Blue tactical was a lot better than that. But it is wrong to suggest that it still would be a formidable opponent. take 20 times faster hardware than a 200Mhz Pro and take a newer zarkov version which is using a bit less time now to get to that depth. Because the reason why zarkov had problems getting to 10-12 ply in those days is the same reason why deep blue just got 10-12 ply. It was NOT using nullmove a lot! Zarkov did have it, but he did some fullwidth nonsense last few plies. I do not know whether he has improved it sincethen. I guess so. It is trivial that going from deep blue 1 (piece square table program) to deep blue 2 was a major step forwards. It is also trivial that comparing with 2003 software and hardware it looks completely outdated. Hsu never was a chessprogrammer. He was a hardware guy. So if a commercial programmer like Donninger is working for a year or 4 at a hardware version of nimzo now, then it is trivial that this is going to look a lot better than the oldies looked like. >-K
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.