Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:40:50 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 09:51:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 30, 2001 at 09:17:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On March 30, 2001 at 08:44:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On March 28, 2001 at 23:14:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On March 28, 2001 at 16:38:31, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>>> >>>>>chinook ckeckers, (the checkers equivalent of deep blue)is ready to face all >>>>>comers on its web site(admittedly a single processor version, but the same >>>>>software)why cant deep blue or even deep blue junior do the same? is it because >>>>>it is scared of being exposed for what it really is? >>>>> >>>>>rajen >>>> >>>> >>>>Why would they be afraid to expose it as an incredible chess-playing >>>>machine? Can't we figure that out from the Kasparov match? >>> >>>As you know stocks and shares have dropped past months/weeks quite >>>a bit. Still IBM is worth 167.3% >>> >>>After match IBM stock went up most likely because of Deep Blue 22% in 1997 >>>right after winning match. >>> >>>So letting deep blue lose on the web now from all commercial progs >>>and a bunch of chessplayers who will figure out its weaknesses >>>would be risking 22% x 167.3 = 36.806 billion dollar >> >> >> >>First, Deep Blue would not lose on the web to all commercial programs. Some >>might tend to report things optimistically. IE "My program beat Deep Blue" >>when it should be "My program beat deep blue one game out of 23." > >Ok first of all from chesstechnical viewpoint i would be amazed if >deep blue at slow level would ever get further as a draw against me. Didn't you say something like that for the Dutch tournament? I would _never_ say that a program could at best draw me. I know that even very old programs can bite me from time to time. > >Note i assume it is possible to play slow level against it as i >see it on average wasted like 30 seconds a move, which probably >means it either had a hell slow operator or it needs like zugzwang >quite some time to communicate to the processors to start the search. There is _no_ communication delays to mention. At the beginning of a search, they do sometimes have to download evaluation tables to the chess engines, but this is only done when the values need to be changed. Hsu didn't like to play 5 second per move games because a couple of seconds were lost doing this. But only a couple of seconds. Any other time lost is simply operator time. The machine was strong enough, and the match was so visible to everyone, I suspect they chose to be _very_ careful in move input/output rather than trying to save every last second and produce too many "take-back" situations that would subject them to criticism. > >So i definitely doubt it. > >But let's approach it from how IBM will approach it. It will be >a business decision, and those decisions are usually taken by managers >who probably never heart of the 'en passant' rule (i'm not implying >that most readers of CCC therefore know the rule). > >Managers think in terms of numbers. The number is quite convincing >to NEVER ever again let Deep Blue live when it is interesting to let it >play. It's obvious that in 2001 programs are hell better now as in 1997. So? IBM's SP is also a lot faster now. And Hsu re-designed the chip yet again although he didn't build one. So DB _would_ be a lot better today as well. > >Like any commercial program of today will beat the hell out of this deep >blue thing. If it's not book, then it's because of pawn structure, if it's >not because of that, then it'll be exchanging some crucial pieces in the >middlegame etcetera. I don't know of any commercial program today that can "beat the hell" out of my program on good hardware. And I wouldn't begin to claim that I would have any real chance vs DB at all. I might draw a game here and there, and I might win a rare game if I am lucky. But Crafty at 20M nodes per second is not going to be a serious threat to them. Although it would be an overwhelming threat to anything else. For a comparison, bring your program on a single cpu machine and try crafty on my quad to see how you do. Then figure that Crafty could run 20x faster on a big Compaq machine, and think about how you would do against that. And then DB is somewhere way beyond that rainbow... > >However this is all of no concern of business men. They see a 37 billion >dollar risk. > >Even if that risk would be 0.05 as you say (though i think it's more >like a 100% sure risk) then count the win versus lose problem. > >I'm bad in math, so are the business men, so they will do next >math: > > overall risk: 22% of stocks/shares = 37 billion > > working risk: 0.05 x 37 billion = 1.85 billion risk > working win : ?? x ?? = 0 > >What can they WIN with it? What is their working win? >Their working risk is arguably 0.05. > >Most likely it's more like 60%. >Things go bad in this world economically now because of big crises in Japan >(or whatever). > >So SUPPOSE intel goes play them. With DIEP at a 32 processor Xeon. >Very cheap for them to do. They have plenty of 32 processor Xeons idling >day and night and by dealing a blow to IBM they might want to >risk giving me a bit of system time, which i of course will blindfolded >accept. There aren't any 32 processor xeon machines. There are 8-way xeon machines however. But even using 4 of those would leave you 100x slower than DB. > >If i start winning bigtime suddenly they will write the sponsor name >with big capitals suddenly and ask a few TV teams to get some free >drinks. > >They by accident film how IBM technology is getting kicked ass by Intel. > >No here the more likely scenario to happen one day. > >A manager proposes this idea to play again with deep blue for >'commercial purposes'. A manager who thinks even simpler as i do >(as i would play just for the sake of chess) is doing the above math, >and he fires the person(s) who proposed the idea! > >>Second, I doubt anyone would argue that with the current positive impression >>the general public has about the Deep Blue project, IBM would be foolish to do >>_anything_ to tarnish that image. When the "shine" wears off, DB might re- >>surface, I don't know. But at present, when you are on top, there is no need to >>return to the ring too quickly. > >My point is that they will never get back. If they do expect a big bunch >of managers to get fired. They will get back _if_ it seems to be financially rewarding. When the name "deep blue" has faded from memory, reviving it would be worthwhile, most likely. > >>> >>>Last Trade >>>Mar 29 ยท 95.04 Change >>>0.00 (0.00%) Prev Cls >>>95.04 Volume >>>0 Div Date >>>Mar 10 >>>Day's Range >>>0.00 - 0.00 Bid >>>N/A Ask >>>N/A Open >>>0.00 Avg Vol >>>9,203,545 Ex-Div >>>Feb 7 >>>52-week Range >>>80.0625 - 134.9375 Earn/Shr >>>4.44 P/E >>>21.41 Mkt Cap >>>167.3B Div/Shr >>>0.52 Yield >>>0.55
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.