Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:47:17 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 14:45:19, Steve Lim wrote: >SJLIM: Hello all. >CrazyBird: hi. >CrazyBird: sorry for the time screwup, missed the email from sjlim. >SJLIM: just a few moments to get more listeners =) >CrazyBird: mostly programmers here? >SJLIM: folks.. we'll be giving priority to the tech questions first.. if we >exhaust them.. then we'll carry on with general questions - time permitting. >CrazyBird: this is intended to be more technical, but i guess anything goes. >SJLIM: May I formally welcome Deep Blue creator Feng-Hsiung Hsu aka CrazyBird.. >SJLIM: I guess we can begin? >CrazyBird: sure. >SJLIM: here is a long one.. >SJLIM: Hello, Dr. Hsu. My question has to do with the (sadly unlikely) >possibility of your undertaking a future chess project using DB-like chess >chips. >SJLIM: We know that you have acquired the rights to the DB chip design from IBM. >It has been reported that in one recent talk you gave you stated that IBM had >retained all rights to DB's evaluation function. So, really, two questions: >SJLIM: (1) Just the evaluation function? Or most or all of the final DB >software? >SJLIM: (2) How can a new team effectively recreate DB's eval function (or more) >without you, consciously or not, impinging on IBM's intellectual property? >CrazyBird: i only have the right to the chip design. also, i cannot reveal what >is not already publicly available. >CrazyBird: i don't have the code to the software. I wrote the initial code >though, so i can replicate the search code at least. >CrazyBird: theoretically, you could try to license the IP from IBM, but it would >be hard to make sense out of the schematics and so on. >SJLIM: thank you.. next question. >SJLIM: What proof can you offer that Deep Blue 1997 was stronger than Deep Fritz >2002? There is little in the six games on record, and the result against >Kasparov was not more impressive (chess-wise) than Fritz's against a very >well-prepared Kramnik. >CrazyBird: this is all based on old data. deep blue chip was at least 200 points >better than the top commercial programs at comparable speed, and deep blue was >100 times faster than deep fritz. >CrazyBird: it was both tactically stronger and positionally better. >CrazyBird: the tactics apparently did not matter in kramnik match. kramnik was >not playing very deep tactics. >CrazyBird: the positional part matters in two games, but then they were >compensated by misplays on kramnik's part. >CrazyBird: maybe deep blue overshoots in tactics, or maybe kasparov just played >better. >CrazyBird: we will know for sure when kasparov plays deep junior. deep fritz is >obviously not stronger than deep junior. >SJLIM: interesting.. >SJLIM: next question. >SJLIM: What do you think of Brutus, ChessBase's FPGA hardware chess system >currently under development? ( >http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=221 ) >CrazyBird: very interesting. i am doing something similar with shogi. i may come >back to chess when that is done, just for the hack of it. >CrazyBird: of course, they have the disadvantage of not knowing what was >necessary to play positional chess at very high level. >CrazyBird: but they certainly bear watching. >SJLIM: Welcome OldPhoenix.. message me your questions. >SJLIM: What are the chances of Hsu writing a book about DB targeting the more >technically oriented, such as programmers and perhaps the hardware guys? >Wouldn't such a book represent an invaluable contribution to the field? >CrazyBird: well, there are two articles out there on deep blue. one in IEEE >computer, and one in AI. we pretty said whatever needed to be said. >SJLIM: thank you. >SJLIM: real techie one now. >SJLIM: Question for CrazyBird: In the AI article, you estimate that DB searched >an average of 126M nodes/sec. Is that taking into account parallel overhead, or >would the equivalent number of serial nodes be much less? >CrazyBird: actually that is Joe's estimate. maybe it is some recent measurement. >during the match, it was about 200 million. >CrazyBird: the 200 million was raw count. i don't know what joe meant by the new >number. >SJLIM: thank you. >SJLIM: Unfortunately, we have no super machine for computer chess anymore, where >a few years ago there were several: Deep Blue, Cray Blitz, etc. How big are the >chances that you sit together with Bob Hyatt at the University of Alabama, you >do the harware part, Bob the software part and we get an new chess monster? >SJLIM: Since a sponsor would be needed the outcome might be Deep Coca Cola? >CrazyBird: well, building a deep blue class machine is not that big a deal these >days. >CrazyBird: in a talk i gave two days ago, i estimated that the bill of material >for a deep blue class machine is less than Kasparov's one-day appearance fee... >SJLIM: heh =) >CrazyBird: actually probably less than deep fritz's hardware cost. >SJLIM: amazing. >SJLIM: Here are a couple of yes/no type questions. >SJLIM: 1.Does the 12 plies brute force depth of deeper blue means no pruning or >can it include pruning in the hardware? >CrazyBird: it does include some hardware pruning at the last 3 plies. the >pruning appears to have no effect on the search result. that is, it is >effectively pure speedup. >SJLIM: another,, >SJLIM: 2.Does 12 means that the depth of the software in deeper blue was less >than 12 plies(12-x when x is the depth of the hardware that is not constant)? >CrazyBird: yes, the software "brute force" depth is always less. >SJLIM: Question for CrazyBird: In your previous chat session you said that it >was possible to "solve" chess.. it was also said that there might be 10^40 >positions in chess. This number is so huge, wouldn't it be theoretical >impossible just to find a storage media for that kind of data? >CrazyBird: well, i meant it might be possible, not i think it is possible. >CrazyBird: yes, 10^40 is a very large number, but to have the solution tree, you >don't necessarily need the full set. >CrazyBird: still, i don't really believe it will be solved. >SJLIM: thank you.. here is a follow up question. >SJLIM: Question for CrazyBird: Before, the topic came up about computers >"solving" chess. To some extent, they are able to do this with tablebases. How >many tablebase-men do you think can be solved within the next few years, and >further down the line? All positions with "x" men or less? >CrazyBird: the number goes up exponentially for each additional man. hardware >speed and storage density doubles every 1.5-2 years, but we might be reaching >some limit soon. I think we can one additional man within the next 5 years. >CrazyBird: also some the 6-men are not really 6-men, but constrained 6-men. >SJLIM: so that would be 7 man endgame tables then. >CrazyBird: in the sense, pawns are locked and so on. >SJLIM: I see. >SJLIM: next question.. >SJLIM: Yace-Author : Can you please clarify, what you mean by "comparable speed" >in "deep blue chip was at least 200 points better than the top commercial >programs at comparable speed" >CrazyBird: or locked pawn situation, we can go up a little bit faster, since >they have a smaller multiplier. >SJLIM: opps. >CrazyBird: no problem. that was the last part of my answer. >SJLIM: ok.. =) >CrazyBird: back to the next question. >CrazyBird: we had a "phantom queen" problem for the 1997 version of deep blue >chip. >CrazyBird: which forced us to effectively slow it down by about a factor of 10, >and became roughly the same speed as the commercial programs of the day. >SJLIM: I see.. so when they played at this 'speed' you still find a 200 point >advantage to DB crippled? >CrazyBird: murray played 10 games with it against the top programs then and beat >them 10-0, which gives a reasonable certainty that it was stronger by at least >200 points. >SJLIM: I see. >CrazyBird: the games were very intriguing, because we were seeing repeatedly >some hardware evaluation features at play. >SJLIM: interesting.. which ones? =) >CrazyBird: murray is giving all the games he has to icga, but i don't know >whether the 10 games are included or not. >CrazyBird: i can give some examples. >CrazyBird: in one game, the opposing program just have no idea that despite its >material advantage, its king was getting killed. >CrazyBird: in another, the other program did not realize that bishop of opposite >color ending was lost for it. >CrazyBird: or they had no idea that the open file that their rook occupied was >just useless. >CrazyBird: something like that. >SJLIM: thank you. >SJLIM: Alot of programmers on CCC have asked me to ask you this.. for >clarification.. >SJLIM: Please explain search depths for the notations 4(5) and clarify earlier >comments about 12(6). This may include indicating what is "normal full width" >searching, extensions, quiesence search, or other types of searching DB2 >utilized, and which was done in software versus in the hardware chess chips. >SJLIM: Also, what types of pruning were used. This topic has generated enourmous >discussion on CCC. >CrazyBird: 4(5)means the same thing. 5-ply maximum hardware depth, although it >is obviously impossible in this case. >CrazyBird: since the brute force depth is 4. >CrazyBird: i can't really go into the details of the hardware pruning. it is >related to method of analogy pruning, or rather a basterized form of it. >CrazyBird: limitation in the contract with ibm. >SJLIM: Can this be answered? - Does 12(6) mean the 6 is included _in_ the 12, or >in addition to the 12? >CrazyBird: 6 is part of 12, but the hardware can search less than 6, that is the >software horizon may be more than 6 plies. >CrazyBird: and of course, the selective depth can be arbitrarily deep, well, no >more than 8 times brute force. >SJLIM: please "message SJLIM" you questions folks. >CrazyBird: i am curious, anyone received the book yet? the local bookstore does >not have it yet. >SJLIM: some people have quoted from your book on CCC I believe. >CrazyBird: argh, the q search. it is in hardware. both sides are allowed checks >in quiescence search. max is 8, i think. >SJLIM: thank you. >SJLIM: I think we have only one more tech question for now.. >SJLIM: I have a question - it's about Game 6 in the 1996 match. Did DB think >that 20 Bxh7+ was a draw? And if so, what does CB think about Berliner's >analysis showing that this move would win? >CrazyBird: game 6? Kasparov was winning all the time. are u sure that was the >game? >SJLIM: hmmm.. anyone know? =) I guess its the game with Bxh7 .. game 6? >SJLIM: guest211(U) tells you: Kasparov played 20. a3 there, but there was a lot >of talk about Bxh7 being a tactical win. >CrazyBird: that may be the case, but what is the point? he was winning already. >CrazyBird: i think berliner was referring to a different game?\ >SJLIM: hmmm.. I guess we'll leave that for future analysis perhaps. =) >CrazyBird: there was another game that he could sac on h7, but elected not to, >and was glad he did not when he saw deep blue's reply in our lab. >SJLIM: one last comment/question from the programmers.. >SJLIM: Here's a question. CB, I appreciate your willingness to engage in this >Q&A, but its value is limited due to brevity and lack of followup. >SJLIM: Would you consider joining a moderated computer chess message board, such >as the Computer Chess Club, in order to develop a more robust and full >discussion of the many questions surrounding the programming and performance of >Deep Blue? I am certain we programmers would welcome your participation. >SJLIM: And, it's always possible that your participation in a public forum might >encourage potential sponsors to work with you. >SJLIM: by the way Hsu, here is a message from Jack who is joining us in the >discussion now.. >SJLIM: Jack (13:55 19-Oct-02 EDT): I received book from Amazon yesterday >SJLIM: =) >CrazyBird: well, i am retired as far as computer chess is concerned. besides, it >is not clear that there is a great demand for something like deep blue to come >back. >CrazyBird: and being a married man means priority changes:) >SJLIM: no doubt =) >SJLIM: ok.. we are running low on time.. I'll try to sneak in as many questions >as possible =) >SJLIM: ophir : it was described by Mr. M. Campbel that DB lost game 1 in 1997 >becuase of a "random move" - what does that really mean? >CrazyBird: argh. it was lost to begin with. a bug terminates the game early and >caused the kasparov camp to spent all night analyzing why. >CrazyBird: they reached the conclusion that it saw a very deep mate:). >SJLIM: thats hilarious =) >SJLIM: what kind of bug? >CrazyBird: it was something related to move selection, some data structure >problem, i think. >SJLIM: I see.. moving along.. quickly. >CrazyBird: which caused the program to essentially play a random move. >SJLIM: fishbait : for crazybird: I think a lot of people condemn IBM for not >having Deep Blue play in more matches after beating Kasparov. Is that fair? >CrazyBird: the team was burned out, and the only possible opponent was accusing >ibm of cheating... >SJLIM: Tennis : my question for crazybird is what computer program language was >deep blue written in? >CrazyBird: as i said earlier, kasparov had his chances, but he blew it. >CrazyBird: tennis was asking me this question. >SJLIM: Yes.. I believe chessbase covered the story of the rematch between >yourself and kasparov's agent for those that wish to learn more.. >CrazyBird: it is in c, not c++, due to historical reason. the number of lines is >in the order of hundreds of thousands. >CrazyBird: the initial dt-2 code is much smaller though. >SJLIM: Yonney : please tell me if DBlue is able to beat kasparov now that he's >in his twightlight career? >CrazyBird: i have the number somewhere in the book. don't remember offhand. >SJLIM: Get the book folks! =) >SJLIM: Question: If IBM has no intention of ever letting DB play again, why do >you think the evaluation function would still be under NDA, so to speak? >CrazyBird: well, it would be hard, with deep blue distributed between museum(s) >and ibm. >CrazyBird: smithsonian is getting one frame. computer history museum might be >getting some cards as well. >CrazyBird: it seems deep blue is getting old faster than kasparov:). >SJLIM: unfortunately =) >CrazyBird: next? >SJLIM: there was a question about NDA.. >SJLIM: Question: If IBM has no intention of ever letting DB play again, why do >you think the evaluation function would still be under NDA, so to speak? >SJLIM: sorry if you had answered it? >CrazyBird: well, i don't have the evaluation function. ibm was keeping the >option open, just in case. >SJLIM: I see.. >CrazyBird: anyway, i don't have an nda with ibm regarding to the software >evaluation function. >CrazyBird: i do have the hardware evaluation function, but that is under nda. >SJLIM: sorry. >CrazyBird: any more questions? or any followup question? >SJLIM: I got hit with a wave of lag. >SJLIM: TheFischerKing : computers always seem to be weak in the endgame >phase...why is this? is it a very human phase of the game requiring a method of >thinking a machine simply cannot reproduce? do you see this problem being solved >in the near future?? >CrazyBird: that is my least favorite part of the game. >CrazyBird: there is no way around it. you just do something with the knowledge >required. >CrazyBird: lots of special circuits were added in deep blue for the endgame. >SJLIM: Joseph-K : My question for CrazyBird is what have you learnt about your >programme given it's play against the world champion? >CrazyBird: i had not figured out how to do coordination squares though. >SJLIM: coordination squares? >CrazyBird: anyway, nasty stuff. part of the reason why shogi is more >interesting:). >SJLIM: It will be interesting to see what you come up with in the world of >Shogi! >CrazyBird: that is, some king ending, you can draw only if you can coordinate >your king with opp's. >SJLIM: I see.. opposition and triangulation! =) >SJLIM: my question is: Murray Campbell uses co-ordinate squares in his Ph.D. >thesis extensively -- why were you and he unable to get that happening? was this >only due to time constraints? >SJLIM: I assume these are the very same coordinate squares. >CrazyBird: the algorithm for calculating the squares are not easily >parallelizable... >SJLIM: julio-cesar : My question for CrazyBird is Did you think that, if the >Turing test should be done over a chessboard, in, say 5 to 10 years, you could >find computers playing really like humans, in an indistinguishable way? >CrazyBird: anyway, back to your last question. what i learned from the match >with kasparov? >SJLIM: opps. >CrazyBird: i need a long rest from computer chess:). >SJLIM: heh >CrazyBird: that is an interesting suggestion about turing test. but it may be >hard to do. >CrazyBird: scientists like easily doable experiments. we are lazy, you know. >SJLIM: =) >CrazyBird: my wife is cooking something smelling really good. >SJLIM: I was about to say.. >CrazyBird: i may have to leave soon. it is nice to talk to you all. >SJLIM: I think we've answered alot of questions.. but unforunately.. there are >so many more. >SJLIM: Thank you so much for agreeing to come back to answer more questions >Crazybird. =) >SJLIM: I guess we all look forward to Kasparovs game with Deep Junior. >CrazyBird: you are welcome. yes, that should be doubly interesting now. >SJLIM: I'd like to wish you all the best in your quest to dominate Shogi! =) >CrazyBird: it is just for fun. >SJLIM: Folks. Alot of questions that you may have asked are answered in Hsu's >book - Behind Deep Blue: Building the Computer That Defeated the World Chess >Champion by Feng-Hsiung Hsu >SJLIM: or in the preview interview.. we will put up a mega transcript of both >interviews on ICC as well as on TWIC I hope. >SJLIM: Thank you once again CB Hsu. Enjoy your breakfast. >SJLIM: Thanks to everyone for your participation. =) >CrazyBird: once again, thanks for coming. good bye.
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.