Author: Slater Wold
Date: 10:34:23 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
Bob, you have a lot more patience than I. I was going to respond with almost the same exact post, but knew it would do no good, so I refrained. It's obvious. Some people read, listen, think. Some people just read and talk. On October 11, 2002 at 12:36:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? > > >Yes. But a beginner so strong that it produced a 2650+ performance rating >over 25 consecutive games against GM-only opposition, at 40 moves in 2 >hours. > >One _hell_ of a "beginner" I would say... > >Has your program even beaten a GM at 40/2? Crafty hasn't played one at that >time control, but Cray Blitz did and won. As did HiTech. And Deep Thought. > > >> >>But please remind that deepthoughtII was getting 10 >>million nodes a second. > > >Wrong number. Ask Hsu. at one point they had 14 processors and got close to >that, but not for more than a couple of games... Hsu generally claims DT was >2-3M nodes per 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. > > >Again, ignorance is bliss. Deep Thought II had _nothing_ to do with deep blue, >in terms of parallel search. Don't you _ever_ read anything? Deep Thought II >used a Sun workstation with multiple chess chips in it. Deep Blue had a two- >level parallel search using 30 IBM SP processors, each with 16 chess processors. > >No relationship whatsoever, with respect to parallel search. > > > >> >>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.