Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:17:58 06/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 2003 at 00:08:32, Mike Byrne wrote:
>On June 12, 2003 at 22:44:25, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>On June 11, 2003 at 21:06:15, Mike Byrne wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On June 11, 2003 at 00:28:29, K. Burcham wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>we can say that with todays hardware, todays programs wont play
>>>>36.axb5 axb5 37.Be4 in tournament time control. there are several programs that
>>>>will play these three moves if given enough time, for example, Deep Sjeng 1.5 in
>>>>8 hours.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>after I posted that, I realized I was thinking "normal time controls" but if
>>>somebody left their program running a very long time -- it might find it. I
>>
>>Let's be clear. Deep Blue just searched 10 or 11 ply there.
>>
>>Because of hashtables we get that very quick nowadays. At 30 seconds a move
>>you already outsearch deep blue in these positions.
>>
>>That's why when Be4 showed up at 11 ply at the time in DIEP and in Crafty and
>>also in Deep Blue is no big of a surprise.
>>
>>We got simply deeper with more time because of hashtables.
>>
>>So comparing something that searched 10-11 ply with a simplistic evaluation to
>>modern chessprograms is simply pathetic.
>
>Deep Blue is simplistic evaluation - that's not true. Why do you say that? Is
>this something Dr. Hsu told you? Think about what you're saying - Deep blue
>searched about 200M NPS- that is still 40-50x faster than any top of line PC SMP
there is no proof it searched 200M NPS. All we know is that their logfiles do
not report the number of searches a second even. Why did they remove this number
from the 'logfiles' ?
Everyone prints out how many searches a second or nodes a second you get.
We know that their 200M nps number just like their 'parallel' speedup is
extrapolated from single node tests.
That is a very bad thing to do.
>machine today. Are you taking into the considerations of Deep blue extensions -
Just look at what Uri posted here. What we know is that Diep is doing more
singular extensions than Deep Blue did. I might kick them out though. They do
not work positional and in future a good branching factor might be more
important.
Also note that they FORWARD PRUNED using a dubious algorithm called 'No
Progress' pruning.
You can count trivially how many patterns they had. They are described in their
publication. Around 100 or so, in that region. Most had an 'array' of 64 values
to lookup. That's how you quickly get a few thousands of 'adjustable'
parameters.
Best proof is of course the idiotic play it showed. Just take game 1.
Which program is playing h6? Qa5? Bc7? g5?
And which program is missing the move e5 when you can play it directly in the
opening?
>Dr Hsu in his book regarding this position said that the main line was at least
If i say my go program has a lot of knowledge you must keep that very relative.
>24 ply deep and maybe over 40 ply deep (pg 229) (accounting was not one of DB
>strengths).
I get sometimes crap lines from 70 ply.
>You are right ->comparing PC programs to Deep Blue is like comparing you to Bob
>Hyatt -> simply pathetic.
Deep Blue is outdated hardware with outdated search with outdated evaluation,
which for the year 1997 was pretty ok. See how programs at the time played. Very
poor compared to 2003.
Hsu was a hardware programmer, not a software chess programmer. He had enough
problems at his head. What tells everything is that they only 2 weeks ahead
received the processors.
No way of course to bugfix them. No way to test it.
You should really go ask yourself about their evaluation. The first deep blue
version admitted by even Hyatt is a piece square table program. No
chessknowledge at all. Then you believe in the fairy tale that something that
makes simple mistakes with doubled pawns, which gnuchess doesn't even make (it
knows f2 g2 g3 pattern to be good), that such a program suddenly from a piece
square table program by a programmer who cannot play chess himself, suddenly
within a few revisions has more knowledge than other programs?
That's nonsense.
They progressed (1 ply deeper search with a partly leaf eval) that's all.
Still you can proof that deep blue is for a big part a preprocessor. That's
clearly proven here. Or do you deny that?
Now in 2003 you cannot call any top program which plays at the world champs a
real preprocessor. Someone that goes there basically with a preprocessor can go
home directly.
Even the worst tuned program with a lot of chessknowledge will show potence by
good positional moves.
Deep Blue didn't. It only showed the opposite. Some trivial things:
a) big doubled pawn mistakes (this is really basics)
b) no bad/good bishop code (this is really basic knowledge)
c) very simplistic 'gnuchess' mobility
d) not knowing that g5 is bad for your king safety (2 mistakes, both game 1
and also later when it castled long with white and played
b4 which is the same mistake)
In short it makes like 5 to 6 mistakes a game. very very poor.
I'm not seeing how you can say that this would do well in 2003. It would not
even get within top15. Also not when Hsu is going to work fulltime at it.
He simply doesn't know how and what.
The biggest crap of course is saying that he got 200M nps. His logfiles do not
show *anything*. His parallel speedup is based upon extrapolation. Really poor
science.
Everyone who has made a parallel program knows the problems of getting a speedup
at a bad-latency cluster.
His algorithms were that outdated that in the 1999 IEEE publication he writes
that he didn't see any noticable difference between normal alfabeta and other
forms (like PVS and such).
That really is big big big crap and says enough about how 'advanced' deep blue
was.
It is IBM that has created it to a myth by paying Kasparov some coins to give a
show, which he regrets probably by now.
If you want to i can create 150 ply mainlines btw, no problem. It is 1 minute
work. But it is utter nonsense.
>>>think that is true with many positions - obviously I meant somewhere in 20
>>>minutes or less (or maybe not so obviously) -- but I agree with your point
>>>--although the heading is a little harsh since I think you knew what I meant...
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.