Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:56:50 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 18:17:24, Slater Wold wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 16:12:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > > >>>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... >> >>Of course everyone can. It is described at several papers. What Brutus has is a >>*lot* better i can garantuee it. >> >>Hsu didn't program in verilog or some hardware language. because of that it is >>amazing he managed to get stuff bugfree to work. However you can't simply >>compare all that university stuff with what Donninger has! > >Are you joking? > >A hand laid out board is *TONS* faster (and stable) than an auto placed & routed >design. They teach you that in like the 2nd class of EE. > >University stuff? Cause the knowledge from a few MiT grads working with IBM is >probably pre-k stuff right? Nothing close to what Chessbase can do with chips. we are not talking about a small chip here. the big processors are all made by hand. But by a *lot* of persons. Now suppose a single person doesn't have anything except transistors to his avail. simple blocks. then make a chessprogram from that. that's *very* hard. How can you *ever* experiment with something? it is very hard to produce new versions. Perhaps once each 3 month you can produce a new version with a few minor changes. producing a cpu cost at the time must have cost IBM like 30000 a cpu anyway. So producing 'test cpus' is not so simple. Then with all that very low level stuff you are making something that is complex searching. So it's way harder than making a graphics processor for example. Reason: a graphics processor has a clear goal. If some pixel is showed wrong at the screen then you have a bug, period. In chessprograms that is however harder. It is a black box which just calculates moves. We're not talking about something that was tested in FPGA. So you really talk about beginners level testing and improvements. That's one of the things that explains why he didn't have stuff like nullmove working very well of course and why his parallellism was so buggy. 'aborting' a search because a search took too long???? I won't ever do that in DIEP :) The problems to solve were because of this very low level design so huge that he simply didn't have time to experiment with new algorithms except what they invented themselves (no progress, singular extensions). Till to date it is unclear how singular extensions was implemented by them. All i know is via via that they for example most likely didn't do >= beta singular moves. If so then how did they research, because the *original* definition that a move must be margin S better than the rest you can't do without having a truebound. So all with all the way it searched was a mess of course. Results are like most academics have been doing in supercomputer chess: Extrapolation of nodes a second. extrapolation of parallel speedup. extrapolation of search depth. In 1 sentence it says 12.2 ply observed search depth on average. So that's including qsearch. If i would count the qsearch and extensions to my search depth then my depth will look huge too of course. The actual iteration depth is somewhere between 10-12 ply. More like 10.xx ply. Not 12.2 ply. *everywhere* the thing has been overguessed a bit too much. Sure i do believe it was tactical strong. Look how they did extensions. Created to solve mating problems simply. But i would love to compare its tactical strength with for example a program like ferret on a quad opteron after i may overtune some king safety parameters in ferret by hand. The search lines from deep blue clearly reveal such aggressive king safety tunings. For its time that was a very good thing, don't take me wrong! Nimzo a year later impressed a lot by such aggressive tunings (and a Kure book). That the ultra passive program Shredder nowadays also is aggressively tuned, is just showing that Deep Blue wasn't behind in that respect. So in short where the book deep blue will be never closed because of the IBM propaganda and because of the fact that it was the first to show that mankind can lose from computers in a clear way, it is trivial that in 2003 we better cannot look at deep blue. It just played too many bad moves.
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.