Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 15:15:20 06/24/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 24, 2004 at 09:24:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On June 23, 2004 at 22:50:38, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>Do we have now have machines on desktops equal to Deep Blue in strength as Don >>Daily suggested may happen in 10 years or less back in 1999? >> >>http://chessprogramming.org/cccsearch/ccc.php?art_id=44793 >> >>Let's hear your opinions! > >Deep Blue searched 10-12 ply using forward pruning last 4 ply and using singular >extensions first 9 ply. > >Because it used a very inefficient fullwidth search and even more inefficient >parallel search. > >Further its evaluation function was like gnuchess 4.0 with a few bugfixes here >and there. > >In short deep blue is a very bad example to compare. > >It's like DIEP on a supercomputer. I won 2 ply by the supercomputer compared to >my dual k7. Now if you consider the dual k7 i have is a very efficient processor >which is clocked at 2.127Ghz and that each supercomputer cpu is clocked at just >500Mhz and has less L1 cache than even an itanium2 and the L2 cache is even off >chip, then you *start* to realize that such huge hardware gives you only an >advantage (or disadvantage) at the time you use it. > >So you should see it that deep blue was a 1997 program which used hardware to >get +2 ply over a software program at a dual pentiumpro 200Mhz in those days. > >That's how you should see deep blue at those days. That's how diep was in >november 2003 too. I just took the +2 ply (and all the burocratic problems) >that's all. > >There is never a good compare to the future because the software progresses so >much. > >Where i am sure that in 1997 world champs it would have been butchered too (it >was a microevent though), it's clear that by 1999 Deep Blue would have been >butchered clear for even outsiders. 10-12 ply searches were by then also for >programs using a lot of extensions very normal. They were *not* in 1997. The >only ones getting 10-12 ply back then were programs either doing shit in qsearch >or forward pruning (that includes crafty, bob has perhaps forgotten he was >forward pruning in those days, and was doing a 1 pawn futility in qsearch and >had zero extensions, not even solving a mate in 6 like WAC141 which diep 1995 >already solved instantly at a 486; so bob claiming he searched 10-12 ply back >then doesn't count). > >Let's face it. 4000 moves openingsbook it had; handmade, the rest was randomly >generated book moves from games, which as proven by 1999 was a suicidal >approach. > >So against the commercial opponents in 1999 it would have been butchered in book >for sure. In 1995 at least it had a chance, but blundered itself in opening >(O-O?? against fritz for example). > >There are more horrible games from it there. They are really beginners level. In >those days i could win any rook endgame from such programs, against crafty even >with 2 pawns down. You can NOT even beat Thebaron-frc in a match of 5 FRC games at blitz 15 minutes using a Dual 2.8 Ghz :-) PS: I'm just kidding you can probably win 3 games out of 5 :-) Jorge >In 2004, forget it if you have a bit less space against 'em ;)
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.