Author: martin fierz
Date: 17:03:20 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 15:47:17, Mark Young wrote: perhaps because of the DF-DJ qualifier for the brains-in-bahrain match which ended 12-12?! at least that should make it clear that there is no significant difference in playing strength between the two... aloha martin >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.