Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:18:18 07/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 2000 at 20:14:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 17, 2000 at 19:10:26, stuart taylor wrote: > >>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 > > >I have _always_ conceded that micros will catch 1997 deep blue in 5-10 years, >based only on raw hardware improvements. I think I have said that dozens of >times here. Of course, a new DB-3 chip would spread that gap back to a factor >of 1,000-2,000 times faster again... assuming anyone was interested in building >the thing... I'm sorry I don't read everything. Hardware? x over a thousand? But you were conceeding that software can do it-theoretically. 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.