Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 05:45:17 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 08:02:47, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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, Yes, beginners level. And that's how many ELO points above your rating? >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 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.