Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:08:08 06/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2003 at 10:17:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Please don't quote me unless you quote me _correctly_. "chiptest" _might_ have been a "piece-square evaluation only". Deep Thought was most certainly something beyond that. And deep blue and deep blue 2 were beyond deep thought. Your comment makes no sense since chiptest only played in one event and it did badly. It was just a "test". Deep Thought was pretty devastating against all oppositions when it came out. > 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) Kasparov said "g5 was the _only_ move to play." Your comment there is also therefore wrong... > >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. Of course they _won_. Nobody has _repeated_ that yet. They might not repeat it for a while, so deep blue was more than "primitive"... > >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.