Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:02:49 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 15:33:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 18, 2002 at 14:24:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 18, 2002 at 12:47:19, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 18, 2002 at 08:57:47, David Dory wrote: >>> >>>>On February 18, 2002 at 06:35:53, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>I do not think that all of the programmers of today are stupid. >>>>>I guess that they found better ideas. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>> >>>>Better ideas? That's a relative thing, and we have no way to really compare >>>>their ideas (on DB's hardware and software), with ideas used in Rebel, Fritz, >>>>CM, ChessTiger, etc., on a PC, except in a very artificial and abstract way. >>>> >>>>I believe in each case, the programmers found ideas that were APPROPRIATE for >>>>their system. After all, the GREAT idea's of today, would have been disastrous >>>>to implement on a Fidelity Chess Challenger running with a Zilog Z80 CPU at a >>>>BLINDING 4Mhz. >>>> >>>>The reasons DB would still be kicking ass today, were it still around and being >>>>updated, are: >>>> >>>> 1) Hsu and his team had a history of creating a fantastic chess computer, DT. >>>> For all intents and purposes, they really had a doctorate in chess computer >>>> science! >>>> >>>> 2) They used the considerable resources IBM gave them, not just for software >>>> improvements, but to build a bunch of custom high speed micro-chips and >>>> integrate them into the fastest chess computer of all time. (so far :-)) >>>> >>>> 3) After a long time working out the bugs, they brought in GM Joel Benjamin >>>> to fine tune the openings, etc. >>>> >>>>How many other developer's do this, to this extent, Uri? >>>> >>>>It isn't just that Hsu & team were brilliant, or had a TON of resources, or had >>>>such sensational experience building a custom chess computer. It was all these >>>>things together, and I believe the whole was equal to more than the sum of the >>>>parts, which were considerable, in this case. >>>> >>>>If you had several million to invest in a new fantastic chess playing computer, >>>>wouldn't you do what the DB team did? >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>No >>> >>>I believe in pruning rules and I would use the money to find better pruning >>>rules. >>> >>> >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>Pruning rules introduce error. As you go deeper, those errors are >>summed. The DB guys instead chose to design hardware to let them go >>deeper with _zero_ error in the software search, and some unknown level >>of error in the hardware search due to whatever kind of pruning they chose >>to implement there... > >I believe that the right pruning rules practically almost do not introduce >errors and searching not deep enough produce more errors. > >See the mistake of deeper blue in game 2 when it could not see the draw. > >Uri No program will see that draw during the next 10 years. We don't have _any_ program that can search to 60+ plies down every critical path. Forward pruning, by its very definition, is error-prone. No way around it.
This page took 0.01 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.