Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 06:22:44 08/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2001 at 08:51:29, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On August 02, 2001 at 07:15:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On August 02, 2001 at 04:12:24, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>On August 02, 2001 at 04:03:25, Joshua Lee wrote:
>>>
>>>>A bunch of posts mention Hardware being Deep Blue's strength but can't you take
>>>>the program if you knew what the eval, parameters, etc and put it on a regular
>>>>computer? You wouldn't get the same nodes obviously , but it would play chess
>>>>the same way right?
>>>
>>>I think you will have to take an entirely different track, trying to emulate
>>>Deep Blue in software.
>>
>>>Because they had *LUDICROUS* compute power at their disposal, they could make
>>
>>They got actually 200M nps and with their simplistic eval which doesn't
>>even know doubled pawns for example, you get easily at a fast K7 now
>>like 1M nodes a second.
>
>
>Vincent, that is a stupid statement to make. (doesn't even know doubled
>pawns). Their eval, for example, knows more about bishops of opposite color
Well look at the games kasparov-deep blue!!
It played 2 times a stupid move which non of todays commercial programs
is making. That includes Crafty. In both cases it is happy to give
the opponent a doulbed pawn.
Also it has made enormeous weak pawn moves.
It had no pawn evaluation at all Bob!!
Just 1 game is enough already to show its pawn weaknesses:
Kasparov-DBII game 1 match 1997:
Game 1: it's not playing e6-e5, which any of todays program
plays as those programs know that a pawn in the center is stronger
as a pawn on at e6 is. It instead played when it was no good: h7-h6?
A huge pawn weakening of the king!!
And also weird moves like g7-g5? and g5-g4?
Game 1:
1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 Bg4 3. b3 Nd7 4. Bb2 e6
5. Bg2 Ngf6 6. O-O c6 7. d3 Bd6 8. Nbd2 O-O
9. h3 Bh5 10. e3 h6 11. Qe1 Qa5 12. a3 Bc7
13. Nh4 g5 14. Nhf3 e5 15. e4 Rfe8 16. Nh2 Qb6
17. Qc1 a5 18. Re1 Bd6 19. Ndf1 dxe4 20. dxe4 Bc5
21. Ne3 Rad8 22. Nhf1 g4 23. hxg4 Nxg4 24. f3 Nxe3
25. Nxe3 Be7 26. Kh1 Bg5 27. Re2 a4 28. b4 f5
29. exf5 e4 30. f4 Bxe2 31. fxg5 Ne5 32. g6 Bf3
33. Bc3 Qb5 34. Qf1 Qxf1+ 35. Rxf1 h5 36. Kg1 Kf8
37. Bh3 b5 38. Kf2 Kg7 39. g4 Kh6 40. Rg1 hxg4
41. Bxg4 Bxg4 42. Nxg4+ Nxg4+ 43. Rxg4 Rd5 44. f6 Rd1
45. g7
{Black resigns} 1-0
How about that Bob, can you imagine any of todays programs handling
pawns as bad as DB did in this game?
We still didn't look to other major mistakes then like Qa5-c5 and Bd6-c7
and such which hardly get played by todays software. For queens it obviously
only counted the number of squares it attacks. In hardware very
fast to do, we all know that. In crafty you also can do it in a simple
way, in fact if i'm not mistaken you more or less do it like that.
Some of its mistakes even Seirawan could explain by simple knowledge faults!
>and pawn endings than yours ever will. I listened to them talking to a GM
>about this. And what they were doing was _not_ simple. We played a game
The whole problem was that a player rated perhaps 1000 points rating
had to implement it in a chessprogram! A hardware designer. If the
1000 rated player doesn't understand a thing from what he is told, he
can't implement it!
If he does understand it, he would be FIDE rated!!
>at an ACM event and we thought the game was drawn (Cray Blitz knew about
>opposite bishops, but only like crafty does... they are generally not
>winnable). Hsu said "this one is winnable." After the game, he, I, Gower
>and a GM (I don't remember who now, it was several years back) sat down and
>the GM explained why it was winnable and why deep thought was correct in its
>evaluation and we were not.
Any idiot can implement opposite bishops in a program and claim that
an endgame isn't won without giving reasons!
Obviously Hsu didn't know anything from chess. His program plays like that.
It plays like a weakened Gnuchess, which only in endgame plays a bit stronger
as programs did back in 1997 (but todays sofware would probably
completely finish it in endgame too).
>That was just _one_ example. So to keep this "incredibly simply eval" nonsense
>alive is poor judgement.
There are LOADS of examples from mainlines, played moves from DB which
proof that DB knew definitely nothing more from chess than gnuchess 4.0
does.
>>Fritz easily gets it and i can only agree with Frans statement that
>>from any perspective seen fritz is better as deep blue.
>There goes my opinion of you, now... :(
chessknowledge in fritz is also very simple, but it definitely knows
a few 1200 rated things which DB didn't know!!
>
>
>>
>>Fritz gets 990k nps to 1.3M nps at my dual P3-800.
>>
>>Now if you simply do next: select engine parameters and set the nullmove
>>to 0 ply reduction, then fritz is not using nullmove.
>>
>>That factor of 6 you lose by not using hashtable last 6 plies i will
>>even not take into account here, but obviously if you compare
>>any program fullwidth versus using nullmove, then the comparision
>>can be done very easily.
>>
>>That deep blue was in hardware only meant it was harder to make,
>>its design started in 1993 or something?
>
>How about 1985?
>It played in the 1986 ACM event.
Oh it's even more outdated as i realized!
>
>>
>>Back then fastest computer was a 486. Getting a 12 ply fullwidth
>>search looks very good then. Nullmove was doubted by anyone,
>>so definitely you can compare with nowadays hardware, but take
>>into account the huge losses.
>>
>> - no hashtables
>> - fullwidth
>> - many extensions
>> - extensions just before qsearch (see IEEE99)
>> - a completely untested program
>
>I would hardly call it untested. It played hundreds of GM games in
>exhibition matches all over the world. I personally watched two such
>matches at conferences I was attending.
Where are those games?
Note those were most likely only 5 0.
The average program of today is based upon thousands of games of
testing.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>That it crashed so little can only be a major compliment for
>>the hardware designer. I do not know much about hardware
>>techniques, but if you receive a chip in hardware just 2 weeks
>>before the event starts, i can imagine that those first tests
>>whether it worked a bit, were pretty nervous times.
>>
>>Compare that with a very well tested engine that are getting used
>>nowadays in software.
>>
>>hard to compare a nearly untested thing which is just 2 weeks before
>>event starts ready to use.
>>
>>Then if you find a bug you can at most disable its parameter, but you
>>cannot fix the pattern.
>>
>>>choices nobody else would ever dream of. All of the top PC programs agressively
>>>prune. They may not use null move, but something else like it instead. If you
>>>can hit a peak of one billion NPS, you can do things differently.
>>
>>Even in 1997 getting 12 ply was very good, considering that except some
>>programs which forward pruned bigtime or were completely preprocessor
>>based, were getting that depth by then.
>>
>>But by todays standards it makes no sense to say an old machine is that
>>well.
>>
>>It's like saying that a 1980 build computer from hundreds of
>>millions of dollars is going to outgun a dual 21264 from 20000 dollar.
>>
>>>It really does not make any sense to emulate deep blue on PC software.
>>>Unless you want to wait three months between moves.
>>
>>Comparing with the same kind of search with around 1.5M nodes a second,
>>you would need like 200M / 1.5M * 6 = 200 / 9 = 22x more time.
>>
>>I think a factor 22 is very realistic taking into account
>>hashtables kick butt also for the b.f.
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.