Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 15:05:15 08/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2001 at 17:38:05, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 30, 2001 at 16:42:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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... > >No >There is a definition of a micro and it is not about speed. >using more than one processor is not a micro by definition and the meaning of >the WMCCC was always championship of programs who use only one processor. > >I disagree that Deep Fritz needs to beat kramnik in order to prove that it is >better than deeper blue. >The conditions are not the same and kramnik gets the program before the match >when kasparov had no information about deeper blue. > >Note that the claim that deep Fritz is better than deeper blue is supported by >evidence. > >You can say that the evidence does not convince you but it is a fact that deeper >blue was only 2-3 times faster than Deep Fritz in finding similiar lines >in few positions that comparison was possible. I do not get it, you say that DB is 2-3 times faster in certaing positions than DF and that's the evidence that DF is better than DB? Slower the better? anyway, if something was demonstrated by computers was that the winner is the one that does not make mistakes, not the one that find brilliant moves. Only one minor slip committed by DF against DB and it is gone. For instance, it is possible that DB find wholes in the nullmove that DF uses that other programs can't. It needs only one in a game. Who knows? This kind of things can be proven only in matches. Any other experiment is bound to be only speculation. The bottom line is that DB achieved what no other program so far, like it or not: It beat the best player ever, the rest is mystery. Many people here think that DB team are a bunch of idiots that do not know how program a chess computer. This is highly disrespectful of the facts. Some criticized how they carry out the project! they should have test this or that. Amazing, they developed a project and fulfill all the expectations and more, that is a highly succesful project in my book! Too succesful that IBM shut it down... No need to continue (for IBM). Regards, Miguel > >I investigated only a small part of the positions of deeper blue-kasparov and >I am going to change my mind only if I find significant number of cases when >Deeper blue is at least 100 times faster then top programs in seeing similiar >thing(the full main line does not need to be the same but at least the first >plies in the main line need to be the same). > >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.