Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:31:40 03/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 30, 2001 at 13:42:36, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >There *are* 32-CPU Xeon computers. Look at >http://www.unisys.com/hw/servers/enterprise/7000/default.asp > >Eugene OK... I wasn't thinking of _that_ kind of architecture. IE it isn't the same as my 4-way xeons. There has always been a batch of "tightly-coupled cluster" machines lying around. > >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.