Author: Mark Rawlings
Date: 08:51:40 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 10:23:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 02:04:03, Derrick Daniels wrote: > >>On August 29, 2001 at 22:07:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 29, 2001 at 19:07:33, Derek Mauro wrote: >>> >>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:36:54, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 15:21:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 14:41:48, Mark Young wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 14:03:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 13:52:33, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On August 29, 2001 at 12:52:15, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>This sentence DOES say a lot, doesn't it: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>"By the summer of 1990--by which time three of the original Deep Thought team >>>>>>>>>>>had joined IBM--Deep Thought had achieved a 50 percent score in 10 games played >>>>>>>>>>>under tournament conditions against grandmasters and an 86 percent score in 14 >>>>>>>>>>>games against international masters." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>That was 7 years before, and many-fold slower hardware (and much weaker >>>>>>>>>>>software, no doubt), than what played Kasparov in 1997. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>>>This sentence tells me nothing new. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I know that humans at that time did not know how to play against computers like >>>>>>>>>>they know today. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Today programs got clearly better results than deep thought >>>>>>>>>>and there is more than one case when they got >2700 performance inspite of >>>>>>>>>>the fact that the opponents could buy the program they played against them >>>>>>>>>>something that Deep thought's opponents could not do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Deep thought produced a rating of 2655 over 25 consecutive games against a >>>>>>>>>variety of opponents. None of them were "inexperienced" in playing against >>>>>>>>>computers. Byrne. Larson. Browne. You-name-it. That argument doesn't hold >>>>>>>>>up under close scrutiny. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In some ways, it appears that the GMs of today are >>>>>>>>>prepared far worse than the GMs of 1992 were prepared to play computers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don?t see how GM?s of today are less prepared to play computers. Anyone of >>>>>>>>them can and has played computer programs at home stronger then the programs of >>>>>>>>the early 1990?s. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I am basing that on the games I have seen, plus the important detail that in >>>>>>>1992, strong GM players at the US Open, the World Open, and other events >>>>>>>(particularly those in the northeast US) knew they would be facing Hitech, >>>>>>>Deep Thought, and at times, Belle and others. Since 1995 this has not been >>>>>>>the case as it is nearly impossible to find a tournament in the US that will >>>>>>>allow a computer to compete. If they aren't going to face the machines, they >>>>>>>aren't going to study them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I don?t think preparation is the problem. It is the strength of the programs of >>>>>>>>today. It seems if you are not in the top 100 of the Fide list your chances of >>>>>>>>besting the better programs is not very good. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It seems clear that the programs of today are stronger then Deep Thought of 1992 >>>>>>>>that produced a rating of 2655 playing against "Byrne. Larson. Browne. >>>>>>>>You-name-it". Do you agree with this? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No I don't. I would agree that probably they programs of today are in the >>>>>>>same league with Deep Thought of 1992, maybe. At least on the 8-way boxes. >>>>>>>Their NPS speed would be similar. Deep Thought wasn't known to be an incredibly >>>>>>>"smart" program, neither are today's programs. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I consider the top programs of today as clearly smarter than Deep thought. >>>>> >>>>>Based on what? Top programs of today _still_ seem to be unable to understand >>>>>simple chess concepts like the pawn majority we have been discussing in another >>>>>thread. I discovered, by bits and pieces, some of the knowledge in deep >>>>>thought, and it was not "small" at all. Everyone assumes that the micros are >>>>>much smarter... and that us old supercomputer guys simply depended on raw speed >>>>>to win games. If you look at the game Cray Blitz vs Joe Sentef, from 1981, >>>>>you will find a position that many programs today will blow, and that programs >>>>>of 5 years ago would totally blow (bishop + wrong rook pawn ending knowledge). >>>>>We weren't "fast and dumb" at all. Neither was DT, DB or DB2. Fast, yes. But >>>>>definitely not "dumb". The "intelligence" of todays programs is mostly myth >>>>>brought on by fast hardware that searches deep enough to cover for some of the >>>>>positional weakness the programs have. >>>> >>>>If DB was "smarter" than today's programs (and I believe you that it was), and >>>>you consider today's programs not to be super-intelligent, why is it that we >>>>haven't been able to make smarter programs? It makes perfect sense that in 4 >>>>years we should have made more progress. Did the DB guys just know a hell of a >>>>lot more than we have figured out, or is it that because of some hardware issue >>>>we just can't implement everything, or something else? >>>> >>> >>> >>>Building a chess program is very much like balancing a high-performance boat >>>on the pad at 80 MPH. It takes a very good sense of balance, touch, and skill. >>>In a chess engine, you have to balance speed vs smarts. Sometimes you have to >>>sacrifice one for the other to fix a specific problem. Too often, the smarts >>>has to take a back seat to speed or the smart program is too slow and gets >>>ripped apart tactically. DB didn't have to make such compromises. In hardware, >> >>Hi Bob >> >> >> Just an uninformed thought...What if the Deep blue team implemented some of the >>compromises the Micro programmers make, or adopted pruning, and null move >>techniques, wouldn't Deep blue have been even Stronger and have a greater Depth >>of Search?? I don't have enough computer chess understanding to know if this >>question makes sense, but it was just a thought. > > >Let's stick to my boat analogy for the moment. I'm currently running a 28" >pitch prob, to reach a top speed of around 85 miles per hour. I want to be >able to outrun my friends on top-end, and I _also_ want to be able to beat them >in a zero-to-sixty miles per hour race. To do that I would probably run a >24" pitch prop for better acceleration. But I have to compromise. best top >speed might be 30" pitch, best acceleration might be at 24" pitch. I pick >something in the middle to give me the best of both words. > >Now for deep blue. They had more money to spend than I do. So they go off and >build a variable-pitch prop that starts off at 22" pitch, and progresses to 30" >at high rpms. Their special hardware solution blows me away in the drag >race, it blows me away in the top-end race. And it blows me away at anything >in between. Because they didn't have to make a compromise since they were >designing hardware to do _exactly_ whatever the task at hand was. > >In DB, they don't _need_ to make compromises as we do in software programs. >Doing so would make no sense at all... They simply do whatever they want, >and they make it fast due to the hardware... > > I think the point was: wouldn't they be even _better_ with, for example, null-move? I would think the extra 2 or 3(?) ply would have been very helpful, just as it is with todays micros (even though it is a compromise...) Mark > > >> >> >>>you can do as much as possible in parallel, and adding another parallel slice >>>of computation doesn't slow it down at all unless you overflow the adder tree >>>and are forced to add another level. >>> >>>IE there are lots of things I would _like_ to do in Crafty, but most of them >>>hurt overall speed. And too much of that kills the overall skill of the >>>program. If I could design the engine, knowing that anything I do is not going >>>to crush search speed, I would have a _far_ different search engine than I do >>>today. >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Deep thought had also a problem in the repetition detection and I believe that >>>>>>the search algorithm of the top programs of today is superior because Deep >>>>>>thought did not use null move or other pruning methods. >>>>> >>>>>There is nothing that says you must use forward-pruning methods to write a >>>>>strong program. Nothing at all. DT had repetition problems in the chess >>>>>hardware, yes. But in _spite_ of that it played like a super-GM. DB and DB2 >>>>>had no such problems. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri
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.