Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:13:06 08/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 02, 2001 at 09:22:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>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?
Right... one of those "weird moves" that Kasparov said "this was the only
chance..."
>
>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?
Yes I can. Yours included. I've seen your program play, don't forget.
I have seen yours wreck the g7-h7 pawns and open files for the opponent at
g2-h2, and _then_ castle right into that attack. That is supposedly more
intelligent than Deep Blue???
If you want to follow this line of reasoning, you post a game Deep Blue
played badly in. I'll post 10 where your program (or mine) played worse.
>
>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.
Nope. Don't do it at all.
>
>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!
Hsu isn't a 1000-rated player. Murray is a master. I don't see your point.
I don't have any problem implementing GM suggestions. I don't see why they
would either, particularly when I know Murray is a far better chess player than
I am.
>
>If he does understand it, he would be FIDE rated!!
Why? Is having a FIDE rating a necessary condition to be a chess master? I
know more than one exception that will disprove that theory instantly.
>
>>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!
First, none of them are idiots. Second, he explained _exactly_ why it wasn't
drawn, and the GM agreed. It turned out that same GM had worked with them to
handle this particular problem.
>
>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.
OK. I'll bite. Let's take some of the games diep has played. I will be glad
to point out moves made that were far worse than _anything_ ever played by DB.
You want to take one or two moves and say yours can do better. In reality,
those are the exceptions. More often your program (or mine) will make more
moves worse than DB than moves that are better. Which makes the point almost
worthless...
>
>>>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!!
All I will say is "baloney".
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>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!
Your logic escapes me. Rebel was playing in 1986. I assume it is outdated
too, then? You do realize that software can be revised? And so can hardware?
Deep Thought was redone more than once. Deep Blue had two distinct chess
processor versions... I don't follow your comment at all...
>
>>
>>>
>>>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.
No. It played mainly 30 0 type games. I watched one 6 game match vs
Robert Byrne at a supercomputing conference (in New Mexico I think). I
watched it play someone else (don't remember who) at another conference
the same year. These were matches set up in public locations so that anyone
could watch. They did it repeatedly.
>>>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.