Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Some facts about Deep Thought / Deep Blue

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 13:42:09 08/30/01

Go up one level in this thread


On August 30, 2001 at 16:17:46, Uri Blass wrote:

>On August 30, 2001 at 15:30:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On August 30, 2001 at 14:27:08, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>On August 30, 2001 at 10:23:28, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>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...
>>>
>>>It is also possible that since they had an engine a hundred times more powerful
>>>than yours, they just used the first prop they found, and since it worked, no
>>>problem.
>>>
>>>Now make your engine twenty times faster, but pay very careful attention to what
>>>prop you use.
>>>
>>>Who wins?  Their engine is still faster, but perhaps they lost more than 80% of
>>>their power due to the bad prop.
>>>
>>>We don't know, because only one boat is in the water.
>>>
>>>This is not to disparage DB.  Maybe they had a wonderful prop.  Nobody knows.
>>>
>>>To use yet another metaphor, I'm perfectly able to sense a door.  I can
>>>understand that it's closed.  I can feel it.  I can knock on it.  And I can come
>>>to the conclusion that if I walk into it, I'm going to break my nose.
>>>
>>>But what we have here is a door that doesn't exist anymore, and you're telling
>>>me how I'd not only break my nose if I tried to walk through it, I'd wreck my
>>>car if I tried to drive through it.
>>>
>>>I'd prefer to at least be able to knock on it to know that it's not made out of
>>>paper.  Everyone has a right to ask for that much evidence.  Philosophy and
>>>science aren't built on, "This is true, trust me".
>>>
>>>bruce
>>
>>
>>I agree.  There are three positions someone can take on the DB issue.  I will
>>list them and then pick the one I like:
>>
>>1.  DB sucks and is worse than today's micros.
>>
>>2.  DB is invincible and is so far above today's micros it is not worth
>>    discussing.
>>
>>3.  There is ample evidence that older versions of the thing were invincible
>>    when they were playing.  And the newest version did something nobody else
>>    has repeated, yet (beating Kasparov in a match).  This leads me to believe
>>    that they certainly are ahead of today's machines, until one of today's
>>    machines shows some evidence of catching up to them.
>>
>>I fall in category 3 above.  Several fall in category 1.  Category 2 isn't
>>really worth talking about.  I would personally be just as happy as anything
>>if the (1) group would just remain silent.  Because (1) is not supportable by
>>any evidence other than prejudice.  I think there is a lot to be learned from
>>the machine, and it will be learned over time...
>
>There are more than 3 categories.
>
>There are people who have no opinion in the question if deeper blue is better or
>worse than the best micros.
>
>I did not say that Deeper blue is worse than today micros and I only said that
>it is worse than the Deep Fritz that is going to play against kramnik.
>
>The deep fritz that is going to play against kramnik is not a micro because it
>is using 8 processors.
>
>Uri


It is still a micro.  Perhaps equivalent to a 5ghz micro (maybe less) but it
is still a micro program.  And it isn't better than DB unless it proves it by
beating Kramnik.

We will know before long...



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.