Author: Uri Blass
Date: 22:53:46 07/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 09, 2002 at 19:28:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 09, 2002 at 18:29:20, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On July 09, 2002 at 18:11:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 09, 2002 at 17:57:17, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 09, 2002 at 17:46:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 17:19:40, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 16:35:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 16:10:46, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 15:26:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 13:38:03, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 13:27:31, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 12:51:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On July 09, 2002 at 07:35:55, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 23:18:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 14:49:22, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 14:26:22, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 12:36:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 12:15:06, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 11:32:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 08, 2002 at 00:32:42, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 06, 2002 at 20:15:06, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I suspect that search may see that the right move help to push the opponent king >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>closer to the corner relative to the wrong moves and it may be enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, that looks like the best thing to try and work on, doesn't it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If not, can I ask two questions?: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1)What should be done during the near future to push computer elo forward as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>much as possible? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2)If Deeper blue was really much stronger than todays tops, what was that due >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to? Better long-term planning? Seeing deeper? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Huge speed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It was doing most things worse than the best micro programs, but it was doing it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so fast that it was eventually stronger. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hum... Let me rephrase for the sensitive people out there. There was nothing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Deep Blue did better than the best micro programs. But it was so fast that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>allowed it to hide its defficiencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Shit. That's not very diplomatic either. Let's try again: Deep Blue was build >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>around a concept outdated by 2 decades but fortunately it was so fast that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nobody noticed until their creators published their paper. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Oops... OK, once again: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob likes Deep Blue a lot, and that should be a reason good enough to convince >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>you that it was well designed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christophe ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Er... excepting one game by Fritz in 1995, when was the last time you saw >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>any micro beat any predecessor of deep blue? When was the last time _your_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>program beat or drew them? Etc... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Results speak far louder than prejudice... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Results can only prove that they were better than their opponents but this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not the question. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That is the problem. That was _the_ question. But since the answer is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>clearly known, everybody wants to change the question to something that would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>try to make deep blue look "less" than what it really was. But it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>unbeatable, considering that it lost to one micro in almost 10 years of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>competition. Nobody _else_ has ever come close to that kind of dominance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think it funny that _now_ the question becomes "was their search optimal"? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Implying that current micros _are_. Which is a joke. Both have enough holes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to supply a swiss cheese factory for years. The concept of "optimal" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>joke. The concept of "results" is the only scientific way to measure the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>programs against each other. The rest is only subjective opinion. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There has been a big smoke fog spread around Deep Blue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>At the time of the Kasparov match, we have been told that: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1) it was extremely fast. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2) it had much more knowledge than any other program around. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3) it was using some revolutionnary search techniques. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now that we are able to see more clearly what it was, it turns out that: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1) its superiority came from its speed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>2) the rest was nothing new, and we are still trying to figure out what part was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>actually superior to what the best micro programs are doing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't think that noticing the above is against the interest of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I will be happy to publish the steps to pass muster for human (including GM's) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>experiments. One quick note is that any "scientific" test to be valid must be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>reliable/published so that it can be shown to be repeatable by an independant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>scientist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The DB project was a secret thing, it was very nice " h/w technology", but I do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not consider much about DB to be related to science. I am not sure the DB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>results are reliable, I would expect significantly different results if the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Human GM played a few more game (say 100 prep like the 2700 GM had against Rebel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>recently). I expect DB 1996/97 would get beat by the PC's today in a "true" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>double blind match/tournament. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>You were doing OK until that last sentence. Do you _really_ think you could >>>>>>>>>>>>>>take _any_ program from 1997, run it at 200M nodes per second, and that program >>>>>>>>>>>>>>would lose to today's micro programs at 1M nodes per second. I _hope_ you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>believe that. And yet we _know_ that DB 97 was certainly stronger than any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>1997 micro, because deep thought was stronger than any micro of its time and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>DB took a quantum leap 100X faster than Deep Thought. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Read my last statement again. I said "PC's today", not programs from 97. Yes I >>>>>>>>>>>>>do believe that in a double blind match/tournament the top "PC's (single and >>>>>>>>>>>>>multi-processor chess programs" would beat DB 96/97. I would add that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>Programmers for Fritz, Junior, Tiger, Hiarcs, Shredder, Rebel would have to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>included and independant arbiter used. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>I also agree with Uri's reply: >>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?239295 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Reread what _I_ said. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>"if you take _any_ PC program from 1997, and magically find hardware fast enough >>>>>>>>>>>>to make it run at 200M nodes per second, then according to your above statement, >>>>>>>>>>>>you _must_ believe that today's micros would smash that PC in your 'double- >>>>>>>>>>>>blind' match". >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>I don't believe that for a minute. And since DB 97 was stronger than any >>>>>>>>>>>>micro in 1997, you must believe that today's micros are far superior to 1997's >>>>>>>>>>>>micros, based solely on software. That is a crock. Today's programs are >>>>>>>>>>>>stronger. But not a _lot_ stronger, if you run 1997 vs today's programs on >>>>>>>>>>>>equal hardware. Hardware is a _lot_ of the strength gain. And DB had a _lot_ >>>>>>>>>>>>of strength. I don't believe today's programs could beat a 1992 micro program >>>>>>>>>>>>if it were running at 200M nodes per second. That is simply too large a time >>>>>>>>>>>>handicap and the tactics will rule the game. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>(1) What was the specific W L D record for Deep Blue 95 against the 1995 >>>>>>>>>>>programs/hw? It was 1 win 1 loss 1 Draw. (2) What was it for Deep Thought W L >>>>>>>>>>>D against the 1997 programs/hw? 0 wins 0 loss 0 draw. Deep Thought did not >>>>>>>>>>>play any of the 1997 pc programs. I do not see actual results to support your >>>>>>>>>>>statements. Please post the games and results for Deep Blue or Deep Thought >>>>>>>>>>>against the 1997 programs. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Yes, the Programs today on today's hardware would smash the programs that Deep >>>>>>>>>>>Thought beat in 1989 on 1989 hardware. In 1989 DT beat Rebel X and Fidelity X >>>>>>>>>>>on 1989 harware, so what, big deal. I am sure any of the top programs on todays >>>>>>>>>>>hardware would have no problem winning. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I do not see any "results" based evidence to support the statement that DB 96/97 >>>>>>>>>>>or Deep Thought (any year) was stonger than programs in 1997. I only hear that >>>>>>>>>>>Deep Thought beat two programs in 1989 and DB was 100 times faster. The >>>>>>>>>>>programs/hw in 1997 were close to DB96/97 and the programs today are better >>>>>>>>>>>than DB 96/97. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I never said that the 1997 programs needed to be run at 200mnps. You said that. >>>>>>>>>> I think the 1997 programs were close to DB, not that far behind. 1997 version >>>>>>>>>>of Rebel on todays fastest single AMD would beat DB 96/97 in my opinion. DB >>>>>>>>>>96/97 needed the blazing speed, not the commercials. The HW/SW today would beat >>>>>>>>>>DB 96/97. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I didn't say you said _anything_ I clearly said that if you took a 1997 >>>>>>>>>program, and put it on "magic hardware" do you _really_ think that a program >>>>>>>>>/ machine from today would beat it, if this "magic hardware" ran the 1997 >>>>>>>>>program at 200M nodes per second? I don't think today's program would stand >>>>>>>>>even a small chance of winning any significant numbers of games at that time >>>>>>>>>handicap. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And that time handicap is _exactly_ what 1997 DB would hold over _any_ program >>>>>>>>>of today on today's hardware... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>DB nps does not equal Rebel nps or Tiger nps or Fritz nps or ... You can not >>>>>>>>compare nps to nps. I look at results and there are no games (except human vs >>>>>>>>computers) for comparison. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You can't compare 1M nps to .5M nps to be sure. But you can _definitely_ >>>>>>>compare 1M nps to 200M nps and conclude something about the outcome. A factor >>>>>>>of 2-3 in NPS is possibly not significant. A factor of 200 is _always_ >>>>>>>significant. >>>>>> >>>>>>OK, I believe that top 5 comercial 97 programs at 200Mnps would beat DB 96/97 >>>>> >>>>>I don't. From experience. Going that much faster requires significant changes >>>>>to the search extensions and evaluation. Otherwise you go N plies deeper, your >>>>>extensions trigger far too much and the search explodes. >>>> >>>> >>>>My experience in few positions when I gave Movei to search for many hours is >>>>that the search did not explode. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Your program is pretty new. Does it do check extensions? one-reply extensions? >> >>Yes,Yes >> >>>threat extensions? mate threat extensions? >> >>No,no >> >> recapture extensions? >> >>I have some rules of extensions there. >> >> passed pawn >>>push extensions? >> >>Only pawn to the 7th rank and only in part of the cases. >> >> >> The more sophisticated you get with extensions, the more >>>tuning they require to stay "under control". And the more likely that a very >>>fast machine will tickle them in a way that produces an unexpected explosion. >> >>There may be positions when there is an explosion in extensions but it probably >>does not happen in most of the cases because I did not find it in the few cases >>that I tried to analyze a position for hours. >> >>Uri > > >Wait until you try a position with a passed pawn promoting, giving check, is >the only legal move you have to make, and it is also a recapture. In an 8 ply >search, you _might_ see one in the right kind of position. In a 16 ply search, >you might see more than one and that may do you in. > >Again, as you add extensions, they require more careful tuning. Do you allow >more than one ply of extensions per ply? Yes I allow more than one ply of extension per ply. 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.