Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:11:20 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 18:49:55, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On October 16, 2003 at 18:07:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On October 16, 2003 at 15:25:43, Steven Edwards wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2003 at 09:20:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>On October 16, 2003 at 09:06:17, swaminathan natarajan wrote: >>> >>>>>about 900 n/s >>>> >>>>It had better be faster. IE a single xeon runs over 1M nodes >>>>per second. >>> >>>How far we have come! >>> >>>I seem to recall Slate and Atkin reporting that their program Chess 4.5 ranged >>>between 250 and 600 Hz on a CDC 6400 (roughly equivalent to an Intel 33 HMz >>>80386+80387), and this was enough to give some humans a decent challenge (back >>>in the mid 1970s) along with winning the world CC championship. >>> >>>Processing speed has increased by a factor of forty or so in the past three >>>decades. Are the programs/platfrom combinations of 2003 much more than forty >>>times "better" than that of 1973? How much of the "better" ratio is due to >>>improvements in algorithms? >>> >>>More specifically, if one were to take Crafty or a similar program that has the >>>NWU Chess 4.x as a great grand uncle and run it on a 33 HMz 80386+80387 class >>>machine, how would it fare against Chess 4.x running on a true clock speed >>>emulation of CDC 6400 hardware? (The last real CDC 6400 was powered off long >>>ago, perhaps in the mid 1980s if I remember correctly.) >> >>I suspect that in a 100 game match, Crafty would win 100 to zero. We could >>reverse the question. Take the program of long ago and compile it with modern >>compilers. Now try the experiment on really fast hardware. That is a more >>important question to me. I don't care how crafty would perform on a 386 >>because I have no intention of running it on a 386 at any time or for any >>reason. >> >>>I assume that the more modern program would win most of the time, but it >>>wouldn't be that much of a performance mismatch. If today's programs on today's >>>hardware are 1000 Elo stronger than the 1973 CC champ, how much of that is due >>>to better algorithms vs better hardware? I'll take a guess and say that thirty >>>years of advances in software is responsible for no more than 200 Elo >>>improvement and perhaps only 150 Elo points. And most of the software >>>improvement is due to only a few new ideas: >>> >>> 1. PVS/zero width search >>> 2. Null move subtree reduction >>> 3. History move ordering heuristics >>Insignificant >> >>> 4. Tablebase access during search >>Insignificant >> >>> 5. Automated tuning of evaluation coefficients >>Less than insignificant. Nobody has ever exceeded the hand tuned values. Right >>now, if you do this, it will make your program play badly. I also suspect that >>the Deep Blue team harmed their chess engine with this approach. >> >>This one is the most important: >>#0. Hash tables and move ordering >> >>Without this, you won't achieve #0: >>#1. Better evaluation >> >>>Computer chess was supposed to be the Drosephilia of AI. If so, CC theory is >>>still in the larval stage and I don't see wing buds popping out any time soon. >>>Where are the CC planning engines? Where are any general pattern recognition >>>algorithms in use? >> >>Because the hand-tuned algorithms are superior. >> >>>What program has real machine learning? >> >>Lots of them. Unless you mean genetic style evolution of strength or neural >>nets. Both of those have been tried and are flops (as of this date and for >>those attempts that have been published). >> >>>Which programs are >>>adaptive and can re-write better versions of themselves? >> >>Octavius springs to mind. It's a wimp. >> >>> How many programs can >>>converse in natural language and answer the simplest of questions as to why a >>>particular move was made? >> >>That is 10 years off in the future. >> >>> Where are the programs that can improve based on >>>taking advice vs coding patches to the Evaluate() function? >> >>There are none of those. Nimzo's programming approach could be considered >>similar to this, except that the language is typed and not spoken. He uses a >>metalanguage that describes chess (IIRC). >> >>>And the big question: What has CC done for AI in the past thirty years, and what >>>can it do for AI in the next thirty years? >> >>The Deep Blue chess match is the most famous chess match of all time. The >>strongest human player was beaten in a game of exponential complexity. >> >>It is not a good idea to try to predict the future. Even mathematically >>speaking and when you have a lot of data points, extrapolations are very >>dangerous. >> >>>Hint: Any remotely correct answer does not include the phrase "nodes per >>>second". >> >>I disagree. Hans Moravec's book shows that in 30 years, our CPU's will be >>smarter than we are. And why is that? Not due to superior algorithms, but >>strictly due to Moore's law. >>http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/talks/revo.slides/2030.html > > >I have some serious problems with that slide. > >1. Moore's law is NOT A LAW. Its going to come to an end by 2020, if not >earlier. Not a chance. It will continue to accelerate. Of course, I could be wrong. >2. According to his graph, a 486/DX2 is equal in intelligence to a spider. I >think not. Even the simplest biological organisms have motor control that is >better than anything we can do today. Check out Asimo. There was also a show I saw where a German autonomous helicopter flew to a scene where mock-up accidents occurred. It correctly identified all of the problems. >Its pattern recognition is far ahead of >the best we can do. That's because it uses a neural net. Neural nets are designed for pattern recognition. > We are just now getting to the point where we can have >semi-autonomous robots. I would put the spider on the level of a quad opteron >or more; Depends on what the goals of the project are. I'll guess the computer can beat the spider in a game of chess. >we have a long way to go in terms of signal processing before we can >even do simple things, let alone reason abstractly as a human does. I think they are already accomplishing this. http://www.ifi.ntnu.no/grupper/ai/eval/robot_links.html >Will computers ever achieve human like intelligence? I'm certainly not going to >state that they aren't. I am quite sure that they will exceed it. In 1000 years, human intelligence will look like a spider compared to the computer. > Quantum computers in particular are _very_ exciting. >But 2020 (as his slide states) is far to soon. The slide says in HUGE LETTERS 2030. 2020 is on the graph about 'monkey' level. >I think even 2030 is too soon. >If ever computers surpass humans, they definitely won't be Von Neuman machines. I think it is unlikely to predict what kind of machines they will or won't be. >The simple fact of the matter is that chess is much easier than it looks for >computers, for the simple reason they don't have to approach it the same way >humans do. What matters is the task and not the approach.
This page took 0.01 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.