Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:02:47 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 00:59:36, Slater Wold wrote: Slate, everyone recognizes that deep thought was an absolute beginner. Do you agree? But please remind that deepthoughtII was getting 10 million nodes a second. Now it only gets 20 times faster and from absolute piece square tables it has a kind of gnuchess evaluation, also with precalculated values for the parameters, instead of an independant leaf evaluation. In short it's not so impressive. If they play beginners level with 10 MLN a second, and they do not use nullmove, then what level do they play with 126MLN a second, knowing that they had severe parallel losses. Practical speed was about 5% of the total speed. Of course same is valid for DTII. I need to remind you too that if i make a program that's not evaluating much. Say only 40 parameters, which is about DBII's eval (as published in artificial intelligence) that it is not so hard to get 2 million nodes a second on a single K7. In fact older fritz versions which are in the same league like that 40 parameters, if they would get optimized to K7 would get a hell of a lot more nodes a second. At a dual K7 it clocked against me at 2.2MLN nodes a second. And we all know how bigtime it was slowed down the past few years by adding knowledge and doing more sophisticated search. DB never did a sophisticated search, so getting more nodes a second is a hell of a lot easier then too! >On October 11, 2002 at 00:25:27, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >> >>Robert, I know you are more qualified than most to have an opinion about this >>comparison of Deep Blue to Deep Fritz. I know you have many reasons to have >>formed this opinion. As you know I find the electrical/mechanical machine we >>call Deep Blue very fascinating for its time. >> >>I have heard your comparisons about hardware, software, search depth, memory, >>search methods, etc. that explains some of your reasoning about comparing Deep >>Blue to todays programs. >> >>My question is, separate from all of this technical discussion, do you have >>several moves that you have studied with todays programs that you know these >>programs cannot find? >>What have you found to be the most difficult of Deep Blues moves? >>Would you please post your findings here for others to study? >> >>thanks >>kburcham > >I have read just about everything there is to read about DB. Lectures, thesis, >ICCA journals, everything. While I'm not Bob, I will take a stab at answering >your questions. > > >DB and later DBII were massive machines. DBII had 400+ CPUs designed for the >sole purpose of examining a chess board. While I believe that the software was >not as advanced as todays, I do have to remind you they did some pretty fancy >extensions (among other things) that cannot be afforded on a PC at this time. > >Did DB or DBII ever make a move that cannot be reproduced by a computer now? >Not that I have found. If you give a certain engine a certain amount of time, >most will always find DB moves. Some faster, and some slower. Some a lot >faster, and some a lot slower. > >Why? > >Anyone can look at the games played against DBII and tell Kasparov was *not* on >top of his game. DBII was never given the oppurtunity to shine, thus, it never >did. There are I believe 2-3 positions in DB/DBII's history that still give >some programs a hard time, but nothing that switching PCs or programs won't >solve. > >However. > >You can look back at Deep Thought and Deep Thought II and pick some of it's >games to compare. Granted, you will not have a one on one comparison, but you >will have a close one. DBII was fairly stronger than DTII, however, they are in >somewhat the same realm. > >Nolot. > >Back in the 90's when Nolot released his position suite, he said that it would >be 10+ years before computers where getting these moves (and lines) right. DTII >completly squashed Nolot. At that time, no program or PC could even *dream* of >getting those positions solved. At present day, *some* programs with good HW >can get *some* of the Nolot positions correct. AFAIK none do as well overall as >DTII. And please, try to keep in mind DTII was 2 generations before DBII. 2M >nps vs 200M nps. (Ok, 150M nps. Whatever number you want to pick.) > >TPR. > >DTII was crushing GMs at a time where if you had brought a PC to play a GM, >people would laugh at you. After the Kramnik-DF7 match, it's looking like >you'll get this same attitude nowadays. > > >I will leave you with this; why if we have advanced SO much in computer chess, >is the "best" computer chess software on the best computer hardware getting torn >apart by a GM? Because he got the software in advanced? Give me a break. >That's part of normal chess. You study your opponenets before you play them. >You don't think Frans and his crew were going over ever Kramnik game played? I >am sure it helped Kramnik, but nothing like most people think. > > >Look at the DT games. Look at the DF games. It is clear to me that there is a >pretty huge difference in quality of play. > > > > > >** All of you anti-DB guys can go ahead and reply all you want. I've heard your >side 1,000 times. I don't agree. So go ahead, waste the keystrokes. It's your >time, not mine. **
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.