Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:07:02 02/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2002 at 19:11:05, K. Burcham wrote: > > >We have read lots of comments on Deep Blue, from lots of different people. >I think I know some of how you feel about Deep Blue and Deep Blue vs GM. >I Have tremendous respect for Deep Blue, and the people responsible for its >creation and performance. I would like to hear your comments, and answers to the >following questions, if you will. > >1.If Crafty would show all Deep Blue moves, in analysis mode, for all six games >vs Kasparov---Would you agree Crafty was at least equal with Deep Blue? No. Because I know what Crafty is capable of... and I know what DB was capable of. It is certainly _possible_ that some program might be able to reproduce _all_ of those moves. But that wouldn't mean that program was equal to deep blue, without something convincing in the way of speed and/or depth to show some sort of "equality" with what was an incredibly fast machine... >2.I dont think I have heard your opinion on this one. Do you say that Deep Blue >is GM level, Super GM level, IM level, master level? That is hard to answer. It _must_ be GM level because they proved that deep thought was GM level beyond _any_ doubt. Whether it is beyond that (into the super-GM level) is another question that 12 games doesn't quite answer... So beyond the "GM" question I simply have to say "I don't know..." >3.Do you say some of todays programs are getting the kns of Deep Blue on the >dual and quad machines? Absolutely not. DB averaged 200M nodes per second, peaking at one billion nodes per second. What program reaches 2M nodes per second, much less 200M? >4.Do you say that the top twelve programs today, cannot play on the level of >Deep Blue? I don't believe they can, no. Deep Thought (at around 2M nodes per second) produced a 2650 rating over 25 consecutive games vs GM players. These were all 40 moves in 2 hours type games. Deep Blue was at least 100X faster, not to mention a lot "better" in terms of evaluation re-design, etc.. >5.Do you say that the Opening Book and EGTB are not an issue when comparing Deep >Blue to todays programs? DB used endgame tables. It used them in 1988 and before. Even HiTech used them in 1985 so this wasn't unusual. DB's opening book was obviously very good, being created by a GM specifically for DB. >6.Is the reason you say no program today can play on Deep Blue level is because >of the Deep Blue chess software (program, search, etc).? "software" is a misnomer. DB was not "software" It was a symbiotic relation- ship between special-purpose hardware combined with software. The "whole" was very impressive.. >7.If you say that 6 is true, then can't we say that todays programmers do not >understand programming on the level that the Deep Blue programmers did? Nope... it just means that when you design special-purpose hardware, you can do things that are not possible when using a general-purpose microprocessor like the rest of us. That doesn't mean the DB guys were _better_. It just means they worked "outside the box" the rest of us are locked inside. >8.If you agree with 7, then is it true to say there is a big difference in >writing a chess program for very large hardware vs limited hardware? In other >words from a programmers point of view, is hardware a limiting factor, knowing >you must prune so as to reach a competitive depth so as to be equal to programs >of the same time period? For example: with a dual 1500mhz and 1 gig ram, do >programmers size their tree for certain results (depth)-----with a 10,000 mhz >and 8 gigs ram, the same programmer knowing he has huge hardware would allow his >tree to be also huge, very little pruning. The program could be doing a lot more >with hardware? The search could be very large with larger hardware. Is this >limiting todays programmers? Of course that is true. But not in terms of raw mhz. the computer can't do some things very well... but special-purpose hardware can. _that_ is the advantage they had. >9.If you say it is the software, then when do you expect programmers to "catch >up" with the Deep Blue programmers? This is going _way_ out into no-man's-land. When chess engines can search at 200M nps and beyond, they have a _chance_ to equal DB. Until then, we will all remain well behind them. >10.If you say it is the hardware, then when the advances in hardware become >available to us, i assume you will say that at that time the programs will be >able to play on Deep Blues level? Certainly, at some point in time general-purpose computers of the future will exceed the capability of a 1997-level special-purpose machine. Of course, if someone _wants_ they can always design a "new" version of DB using current hardware technology and remain 10 years ahead of the general-purpose computers forever. >11. also if you say 10 is true, could you just speculate on what mhz it would >take using the type of processors we are used to today(amd and intel)(not sun or >alpha), to be able to play on the Deep Blue level? I really can't say. For example, 2.0 ghz is enough to get Crafty to 1M nps or so. Therefore, assuming everything scales linearly (memory speed and so forth) then 400ghz would get me to that 200M nodes per second. That is a _long_ way off. If it actually happens > >I know this is a lot to ask. but I find all of this very interesting. >and I feel your opinions on this subject are very informative and interesting to >read. >kburcham
This page took 0.02 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.