Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 06:56:14 06/26/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 1998 at 05:52:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >On June 26, 1998 at 05:08:22, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: > >> >>On June 25, 1998 at 20:52:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>> >>>On June 25, 1998 at 12:15:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On June 25, 1998 at 08:07:53, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>On June 25, 1998 at 06:35:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On June 25, 1998 at 04:54:02, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Here's another question about Hsu's chess chip. I seem to recall reading some >>>>>>>time ago that Hsu was considering a commercial release of his chip. Does anyone >>>>>>>know anything more about this? If the chip were to become available, how could I >>>>>>>use it in conjunction with a PC? would the fixed depth not be "out of sync" for >>>>>>>the speed of, eg a Pentium 333Mhz if it was designed to work with a >>>>>>>supercomputer, or can the fixed depth be adjusted to redo the balancing act in >>>>>>>the new environment? If it were possible, I would be very interested in >>>>>>>experimenting with this sort of hardware coupling. I assume that it would extend >>>>>>>the depth to which a program could search by something like 4 extra plies within >>>>>>>the same time. This would surely improve the strength of the PC ches programs >>>>>>>quite a lot! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Roberto >>>>>> >>>>>>You see it wrong. If you do 4 ply searches without hash etc, then >>>>>>2.5 million drops quickly to say 300k nodes a second. >>>>>> >>>>>>So in fact you're playing against a kind of fritz5, which DOES search >>>>>>all leafs fullwidth, which gives you some extra tactics, so commercial against >>>>>>programs which are only tested at the same hardware and are only >>>>>>busy with outbooking and trying to finish the game by means of tactics, >>>>>>you beat with big numbers then, but it will play horrible. >>>>>> >>>>>>Vincent >>>>> >>>>>Hi Vincent, >>>>> >>>>>I'm not sure I understand - can you explain what yo mean. I do use hash tables - >>>>>would not the Chip have access to my system's RAM? And When you say it would >>>>>play horribly, why so? how could the chip make it play any worse than without >>>>>the chip? >>>>> >>>>>Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>>Roberto >>>> >>>> >>>>you have to ignore part of what vincent writes, because he is an "anti-deepblue" >>>>person from way back. A couple of key points: >>>> >>>>1. no a chess processor could not see your RAM. But they do have their own >>>>hash table memory. >>>> >>>>2. a PC program with one of these chips attached would be far and away stronger >>>>than any existing computer chess program running on a PC. A chess board that >>>>they used had 8 processors n it. A PC could use the same approach, and search >>>>at about 20 million nodes per second. >>>> >>>>I pointed out to Vincent last week here that he was not doing well playing >>>>against Crafty. He pointed out (factually, by the way) that Crafty has a >>>>hardware advantage with the 4 processor ALR. But he's going to have to take >>>>a stand on one side of the fence or the other. Either speed is important, and >>>>his note about me having faster hardware does explain why crafty wins most of >>>>the games played on ICC, or speed is not important and doesn't explain crafty's >>>>win/lose ratio vs the various DiepX programs on ICC. >>>> >>>>I believe in a combination of speed and intelligent. DB has that. A PC-card >>>>with one or more DB processors would *still* have that. And it would produce >>>>unheard-of performance figures for a PC-based chess program. Ala' Deep Blue >>>>Junior, which is basically a PC with a chess board (actually an IBM single-cpu >>>>workstation with a VME-bus chess card, so don't start hoping to buy one of those >>>>and plug it into your PCI bus. :) >>>> >>>>Bob >>> >>>You have to ignore most of what Bob writes about Deep Blue, as he is a >>>known pro-deep-blue authority. >> >> >>If Bob is an authority on DB, then why should I ignore him? I have always found >>Bob to be a font of knowlege in respect of things to do with computer chess. He >>has been in conversation with the DB people, he has written his own programs >>(one of which I believe won the World Computer Chess Championships - can't >>remember which year though), and I have found his suggestions of great help in >>the past. >> >> >>> >>>As i pointed out a 'smart' program like deep blue can never do much >>>knowledge within 10 clocks. This means that total depth of everything >>>is 10 clocks. >>> >> >>Now if I understand Bob correctly, all the positional scoring stuff is done in >>parallel as they did in Belle, so it seems quite possible to me that it's all >>done in as little as about 10 clocks of a PC's CPU. > >you can *NOT* do everything in parallel. > >Within evaluation you get *parallel* results, which you put into new >functions (taking again clocks), which afer a lot of *conditions* >get into new results. > >if pattern > then evaluate > >But first you need the compare values for the pattern, >which are from previous functions > >After all this you get an evaluation which you have to *wait* for >before you can use them in your search. > >So yes a lot goes parallel, but you cannot do *everything* parallel, >because things are depending upon each other. > >>>Also first Bob wrote that Deep Blue had 1000 adjustable parameters. >>>As i pointed out 1000 adjustable parameters are hardly more than >>>piece square tables (already taking 12*64=768 adjustable parameters). > >>So you say that full piece-square tables plus about another 232 parameters is >>not enough? Sounds like plenty to me. > >That's not much, especially if you give for example freepawns at different >squares different bonuses. That already takes care for 64 values. > >Further later was claimed that the amount was 6000, which is impossible >to do in 10 clocks. > >If i parallellize only evaluation (not taking care for the search where you >lose clocks too), then i NEVER can do it in parallel in 10 clocks. > >No way. I will not make it within 100 clocks even. > >Too many things depending upon each other. > >>>So when smoke about knowledge has been removed, we can go to >>>the supposed speed of it. > >>>Then it appears that from the few printouts i saw of Deep Blue, >>>that it just searched 11 or 12 ply. > >>>That's not much for a 200 million nodes a second program. >>> >> >>Well, I don't know how deep you would expect it to search, but if I could get a >>full-width 12-ply search with quiescence searching on top in middlegame >>positions, I would not grumble! > >Buy a PII-300 and see whether you get 11/12 ply in middlegame, >then look to the 200M nodes DB needs for the same. > >>>Now when we consider that it has MASSES of disadvantages a normal >>>chessprogram has at a general purpose processor, not to >>>confuse with single chips, then we see after some calculations that >>>those processors indeed are fast, but their practical speed compared to >>>PC programs is a lot less. >>> >>>Still more than PC programs of nowadays, so no doubt it'll kick some butt >>>in blitz, but i doubt whether normal users who likes to see some positional >>>insight >>>of a program as well will ever be happy with it. >>> >> >>I just want my program to play the strongest possible game of chess I am capable >>of achieving. Whether the program plays in a positional or tactical style I >>don't mind, as long as it wins. I have found that it plays best in open, >>tactical positions, or in positional struggles for controll of open files and >>central outposts, but not so well in blocked positions. I think most users >>prefer a tactical program, although my own chess style as a player is more >>stodgy than my program's style. But then this brings into question what exactly >>constitutes a *normal* user. > >Well what refrains you from developing another pawn grabbing program, >but be aware when 2 programs which just capture pawns play each other, >then the deeper searching will always win, > >Because your knowledge is a subset of the other program which when >searching as deep or deeper will always see the same or more. > >That's why some see DB as *unbeatable*. >I don't see it that way. > >"Tactics is a very important positional aspect of chess" > >>>Further i like to point at the fact that the technology used for DB >>>chessprocessors is very cheap. > >>Great! Where can I buy it? > >Meaning to say if IBM would allow the DB team to make a PC version >this would be not so expensive. > >>>The salary of the PR people who were >>>needed to organize the event needed probably eated up the biggest part >>>of all that money, which IBM claims that the event Deep Blue-Kasparov took. > >>>Greetings, >>>Vincent Hi Vincent, I am already using a Pentium 333MHz, so I have no intentions to buy a slower 300MHz machine, although I might try an Alpha-based computer. The 333 I am using does not allow me to search 12 ply full width except in the endgame, so I think I would need a 64-bit CPU for any dramatic speed-up, unless Hsu's chess chip were to become available of course. Best wishes, Roberto
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.