Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 10:42:36 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
There *are* 32-CPU Xeon computers. Look at http://www.unisys.com/hw/servers/enterprise/7000/default.asp Eugene On March 30, 2001 at 11:40:50, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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.