Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 17:48:23 10/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2003 at 19:11:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. OK, this is simply wrong. Moore's law postulates continued exponential growth in integrated circuit transistor density. [http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm] Clearly it is impossible to make a transistor with less than 3 atoms, so it cannot continue forever. If I remember my quantum theory correctly, an atom several A in size, so we are getting close to the end of Moore's law. Already CMOS is on its last legs. Maxwell's laws have caught up to it - the only thing intel or amd can do with all the transistors their process guys have been giving them is build bigger caches. There is a lot of research going on here, but CMOS is still not going to take us past 2020 (in terms of continuing to shrink). >>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. Could you post a link? >>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 don't know what it uses, really :) Not to mention that noone really understands neural nets. If you build a neural net that recognizes a pattern, you really have no idea what is going on (other than that the neural net works: you have no idea *how* or *why* it works). But my point is that, while computers are very good at certain things, there is much work to be done in other areas. >>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. Well, I'm not even going to touch that one. I have no idea if humans or computers will even exist in 1000 years, and realistically neither does anyone else. I'm more concerned with my lifetime. >> 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. Relax, no need to whip out the caps-lock ;) The graph only goes up to 2020 so I rashly assumed that was his intersection. >>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. We humans are remarkably bad at predicting the future. Perhaps machines will do it better :) anthony
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.