Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:16:16 09/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2000 at 03:35:01, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 15, 2000 at 01:23:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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. > >Other people including programmers have different opinion and the fact is that >IBM does not want a match. > >Deep blue is the only program that cannot compete in the meaning of playing >because IBM does not want it to compete. > > 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. > >I think that it is better not to discuss about Deep blue because we cannot get >into an agreement. > >Uri I made my best guess based on dealing with them for about 10 years in computer chess events. I know how I was able to compete with them when they were active in computer chess events. I know how my program of today compares to the program I ran during those events. And I am certain that I can't find any hardware today that I would use to play them that I would be willing to bet _any_ money on at all in a match vs them. Which was the original question. No, we don't know just how good DB really was/is. We definitely know how bad it wasn't... because it never got weaker as they modified it. And it wasn't weak in its original form in 1987. I wish there was hardware that could approach their speed, given my (or any other program). But nothing comes even close today. In 10 years, yes...
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.