Author: KarinsDad
Date: 10:42:56 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 10:27:58, Peter Fendrich wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 09:51:36, William H Rogers wrote: > >>Would todays top chess program be as good as or better if they were played on >>the Deep Blue Machine. >>The heart of the Deep Blue Machine is hard wired mover generator. It is capable >>of making millions of moves per second, while todays top programs rely on chess >>logic, so if today top programs were using millions of moves per second combined >>with their own logic, I believe they would destroy Deep Blue or any other Chess >>Master. >>Bill >I can't agree... > Although I cannot agree with Bill, I cannot agree with everything you said either. >1) It's absolutely impossible to transform the pc chess programs around to Deep >Blue hardware. Why? The Deep Blue software was written in the first place, why can you not port all of the ideas (if not the identical code) from the current PC software? >2) If it would be possible, not one line of code would be optimized to use that >kind of hardware so the performance would be a disaster compared to Deep B. Yes and if the Deep Blue hardware had no C compiler written for it, you would have to either write one or re-write the code (similar to what Bionic did) into a supported language. And, you would have to re-optimize the code. That does not mean that the basic algorithms of the current PC software could not be used and would not be better. In fact, the opposite postulate may be true. Since current PC software is so limited on speed in comparison to Deep Blue, it is more probable that the developers of that software have had to add elements to their algoritms to improve their programs understanding of the game to make up for their more limited speed. >3) If Deep B. didn't have a great deal of chess logic, despite its speed, they >would have been crushed by Kasparov - they were not... I disagree here as well. Benjamin helped the team add a lot of chess logic to the code for the second match. That is true. However, even before he did this and when Deep Blue was running at half of the speed and with less knowledge, Kasparov did not crush Deep Blue in the first match. He won, but he did not crush (and most other GMs would probably not even have won). From what I have read, the first incarnation of Deep Blue didn't have as much chess knowledge as current PC software programs. The second incarnation had more knowledge, but it also was 2x as fast. Twice as fast tends to correspond from 50 to 70 ELO, hence, maybe it won more due to the speed increase and maybe not as much due to the knowledge increase. Who can say? >4) Todays pc chess programms, spend a great deal of effort to get faster and >deeper - the cost is less chess logic and risky optimizations. Deep B don't have >to do this. In fact they could concentrate mainly on chess logic between the two >matches played against K. > >My conlusion is that Deep B must have a lot of chess logic inside the shell, >compared to todays pc pogram, probably more than most of them. Probably less than most of them, at least for the first incarnation. When you improve the speed by a factor of at least x1000 (over current PCs), you need less logic, not more. The razoring and other pruning techniques are not needed as much just as you said. However, just a standard search at great depth without special knowledge code can produce a very strong chess program. > >The speed gives you possibilities to concentrate on chess logic, not the other >way around. Yes, it does give you that option. However, that does not mean that an increase of chess logic beyond what some of the commercial programs have was done. Of course, this is all speculation on both of our parts. KarinsDad :) > >//Peter
This page took 0.01 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.