Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:23:11 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 23:39:29, walter irvin wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 18:40:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 14, 2000 at 14:42:28, Dan Ellwein wrote: >> >>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:39:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:36:41, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:33:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 14, 2000 at 14:30:07, Dan Ellwein wrote: >>>>>>[SNIP] >>>>>>>I guess it would be impractical to run this test with opening book disabled... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>(startin' with the very first move have the computer think on its own)... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>but i wonder what the data would look like if you did... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>it may be that there would not be a cut-off at iteration 19... >>>>>> >>>>>>My guess is that in the first ten moves no program on earth can get to ply 19 >>>>>>unless it does a ludicrous amount of speculative pruning. Even 16 plies would >>>>>>be formidable. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>We are close. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>> >>>>DB was "there" in 1997. >>>> >>>>:) >>> >>>Bob >>> >>>What would it take to get Deep Blue up and running and give us some data >>>comparable to what Ed has done here... >> >> >>Several million dollars, an act of congress, and divine intervention, I am >>afraid. The several million dollars part is the _easiest_ of the required >>events. :) >> >>We do have some data for 6 games vs Kasparov. Someone could hand-compute the >>above for DB using that data, and get a rough approximation of what kind of >>'change expectancy' it had for each additional ply. > >i figure your as good as the deep blue teem , what sort of hardware would you >require to compete with deep blue and what program would you use??? I think your figuring is probably inaccurate. The DB guys were _very_ bright. And there were several of them. I can guarantee you I would rather work in a setting with 4 bright chess people at my elbows, as opposed to a setting with zero. I could "compete" with any hardware. But if you mean "play equally or better than" when you say compete, then there is no hardware available today that I would want to carry into such a match. I can probably hit 1/10th of their search speed, maybe even 1/5th with some _real_ sophisticated hardware. But I couldn't do what they did in their evaluation without dragging performance back down by at least a factor of 10x... so that in reality, I might hit 1/100th to 1/50th of their effective speed. If I got lucky with hardware. > could crafty >be changed or would you use something like the cray blitz type program.plus how >long would it take you to put something like that together if getting the >hardware was not a problem .like a similar situation with IBM and DEEP BLUE >,where money was not an issue .do you think with current mainframe tech you >could duplicate deep blues results ????? or even do better????? No. General purpose hardware is always a factor of 100 or so behind the speed of special-purpose hardware. In 1997, I would put this advantage at 1000x for DB over the best PC hardware available. In 2000, I would say closer to 200x counding the 8-way xeon machines. Or if you go to the best of the best, the numbers I gave are probably close.
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.