Author: stuart taylor
Date: 16:10:26 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 11:23:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 09:44:57, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On July 17, 2000 at 09:32:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 17, 2000 at 08:05:57, blass uri wrote: >>> >>>>On July 17, 2000 at 07:22:41, Graham Laight wrote: >>>> >>>>>I'm afraid I still feel that Junior could have come out ahead (instead of >>>>>level)in this tournament by beating Bareev and Khalifman - and possibly by not >>>>>losing with such apparent ease to Kramnik. Continuing the game against Anand >>>>>might possibly have gained an extra half point as well. >>>>> >>>>>I think that Amir has an aspiration to make his program demonstably better than >>>>>Deep Blue (this certainly comes across in his interviews published on the >>>>>Chessbase Website coverage of Dortmund (www.chessbase.com) before the Kramnik >>>>>game). If so, as a (hopefully!) impartial member of the viewing public, I'm >>>>>afraid to say that I've yet to be convinced. >>>>> >>>>>As evidence, I point firstly to the games against Bareev and Khalifman. On both >>>>>occasions when Deep Blue '97 gained an advantage over Gary Kasparov (who's a >>>>>better player than anyone at Dortmund was), it parlayed that advantage into >>>>>victory - whilst Deep Junior twice failed conspicuously to "slam in the lamb". >>>>> >>>>>I would also point to the game against Khalifman. Here we see Deep Junior lose >>>>>to a combination of blocked centre and king attack - classic anti computer >>>>>methods which have both been well known for a long time. They work because, in >>>>>this case, nothing short of truly massive search depth is going to help you to >>>>>make the correct moves. >>>>> >>>>>However, for both king attack and blocked centre, Deep Blue '97 demonstrated >>>>>that it's evaluation knowledge was able to adequately handle the challenge. >>>> >>>> >>>>I guess that the evaluation of Deep Junior could do better if Deep Junior could >>>>search the same number of nodes. >>>> >>>>I believe that Deep Junior is better than Deeper blue if you assume 200,000,000 >>>>nodes per second for deep Junior. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I believe pigs can fly. But only if you increase the density of the atmosphere >>>by a factor of 10,000 or so. >>> >>>DB has two almost insurmountable advantages: (1) it is faster than anything is >>>going to be for a _long_ time; (2) using special-purpose hardware they did >>>everything in the eval that was suggested by GM players, because they could do >>>so with no speed penalty. DJ and every other PC program has _many_ >>>"concessions" in the evaluation due to speed considerations. DJ's king safety >>>would fail if it was 1,000 times faster... because there are some things that >>>speed won't help until we reach the point where the computer can see 30-50 plies >>>into the future. You either understand the Stonewall (and its kin) or you get >>>beat by it, regardless of how deep you can see. I don't claim to have solved >>>this either, but I don't see Crafty losing Stonewall games on ICC today, where >>>3 years ago it was getting killed by this attack, and my defense was to hack the >>>book repeatedly. It will certainly lose one every now and then as my randomness >>>(on ICC) will occasionally cause it to play a stonewall as black. But book >>>learning closes that hole, and once out of book, it doesn't have great >>>difficulty avoiding the problem pretty well. >>> >>>There are a couple of ICC "regulars" that are a problem for computers, >>>cptnbluebear is one, and insight is another. cptnbluebear doesn't play crafty >>>much any more because other programs are easier to 'stonewall'. Insight still >>>plays a lot, but he _rarely_ wins. He seems to primarily play for draws, which >>>are easier to do, but still very difficult to pull off. >>> >>>I've done this with special eval code, not with speed... and I have a long way >>>to go myself... >> >>To Dr. Hyatt, So how far do you beleive it is possible to go without tremendous >>speed? If software was maximised the most possible, could 1ghz. ever overtake >>D.B.? or maybe 2 ghz? What is the potential that still hasn't been realised? >>S.Taylor > > >this is an old theoretical question. A similar one: what is the maximum >bandwidth over a single piece of copper? Answer? 1 / signal-to-noise-ratio. >If you get SN to 0.00, the bandwidth is infinite. But that is quite hard to >do of course. :) > >same thing for chess engines. In theory, today's hardware ought to be fast >enough. But the programming is hundreds of years behind what evolution has done >to our "personal biological computer system" we all carry around. It will catch >up at some point of course. > >As far as overtaking DB, that is another matter. Whatever commodity micro- >processors can do, DB (or a new successor) can do 1,000 times faster, easily. >So the hardware we use won't _ever_ be as good as the special purpose hardware >that can be designed/built to handle a specific thing like chess. > >The current DB is going to be untouchable for at least another 5 years, maybe >closer to 10. By then Hsu _could_ do something that would again be untouchable >for another 5-10 years. The special-purpose vs general-purpose issue won't go >away, ever, most likely. Atleast you seem to be conceding that PC software MIGHT overtake the latest version of DB, due to better computing. I mean, it might start catching up a little bit with our "personal biological computerized system", enough, even before another 5 years. S.Taylor
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.