Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:15:19 01/30/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 1999 at 11:38:49, Kim Hvarre wrote: >On January 30, 1999 at 01:09:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >> >>>Hmmm... and once You have Deep Thought it'll be just like the successors; Deep >>>Blue, Deeper Blue and what ever. Once You have decided what to "hardwire" on >>>Your dedicated chips, it's done and over?!;)) >>> >>>This discussion has been running from time to time various places. The point >>>isn't about the actual formalism transforming one idear (PC-sw) to another >>>DB-hw), it's - as mentioned - the likelyhood of doing the "chessstuff" better >>>than the DB-team, and it is rather big looking at the thin outcome of all that >>>cabinets of hardware and speed! (In contradition to results from the better >>>sw-developers). >>> >> >>I don't want to get into a protracted argument. But the 'better software >>developers' are _already_ working on the deep blue project. _that_ is too >>often overlooked. They aren't just 'hardware designers' by a long shot. > >Evident - before they make the microcode (?), they have to code. > No microcode in DB-2 at all... but it was certainly done with a 'silicon compiler' so in a sense, there is some sort of 'program', but not in the form you might think about normally... >> >>>> >>>>there is _no_ C compiler for the DB hardware. the chips are vlsi circuits >>>>and not something that is 'programmable'... >>> >>>Right - there are just given as is ... >>> >>>> >>>>exactly the opposite. you take out what you can't afford computationally, >>>>to keep your tactical speed at an acceptable level. DB has _no_ such problem >>>>and gives up _nothing_ they want to do, they just designed it into the hardware >>>>where the cost was _zero_... (speed cost). >>> >>>Se above. If they really is able to implement infinite amonts of >>>"chessknowledge" in hardware, then they ought to, which they obvious did not. A >>>bit like racing MC's - you can build a superior (regarding speed/moment(um)) MC >>>and you will still loose to the ones, that are more rigid, stable, better >>>designed, etc., etc. >> >>"obviously they did not" yet no other program has beaten any GM in a 40/2hr >>time control match? No other program has beaten a 'super-GM' in a 40/2hr >>match? And the DB guys aren't very good and didn't have 'very much chess >>knowledge'. We've discussed some interesting data that many don't like but >>which is public knowledge about DB vs a couple of micro programs where DB was >>handicapped _severely_ and still blew the micros out completely... So DB is >>doing _something_ right.. > >Did not search very much, but found this one at 40/2: >[Event "?"] >[Site "?"] >[Date "????.??.??"] >[Round "?"] >[White"REBEL 8.0/P90"] >[Black"GM Ralf Akesson"] >[Result "1-0"] >[ECO"B43"] >[ECO "B43"] > >1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 a6 5. Nc3 d6 6. Be3 b5 7. Bd3 Nf6 >8. O-O Bb7 9. a4 b4 10. Na2 Nxe4 11. Nxb4 d5 12. c3 Nd7 13. Bxe4 dxe4 14. >Qg4 h5 15. Qe2 Ne5 16. Rfd1 Qa5 17. Nb3 Qc7 18. Bf4 Be7 19. Nxa6 Bxa6 20. >Qxe4 Qc6 21. Qxe5 f6 22. Qc7 Bb7 23. Qxc6+ Bxc6 24. a5 e5 25. Be3 Kf7 26. >Nc5 f5 27. f3 h4 28. a6 h3 29. Nd7 Ke6 30. a7 Bb7 31. Nb6 Rag8 32. Rd7 >Bc6 33. Rc7 Kd6 34. a8=Q Bxa8 35. Raa7 Bf6 36. Nc4# 1-0 I have done that with crafty. But notice I said _match_ and not single game? That makes a difference. Also matters _where_ the game is played. IE was it just for fun, like many of the old Cray Blitz games were played? or was it a _serious_ game with something at stake to make the GM play? > >Well, Ralf Akesson isn't a superGM (2510), then again it's not very long time >ago I heard the argument; "have never beaten a GM only IMs", so ... >The blewout of micros still remains to be proven. Till now it's just claims and >rumours. >Turn it around - give e.g. _one_ of the "teams" behind Rebel, MCPro, Hiarcs, >Tiger,... 5-10 years, $Xmillion and unlimited resources of hardware and >hardwareknowledge to play with and then wonder if they would have "stopped" with >a DB. Still I think not. You simply don't understand. The DB team was every bit as good as any other 'team' in existance... and DB is the result of that team + time + money. Maybe Ed or others _could_ have done something (none that I know of are hardware designers which means it would be _very_ doubtful they'd have a chance). But at best, _they_ would have come up with 'deep blue'. Doubtful it would have been something "more"... > >>> >>>So the poll-question is rather sensefull, perhaps with a little refrasing as >>>e.g.: "if the DB-team have had access to the brilliance of the best >>>sw-programmers of today, do You then think, they would have come up with a >>>better result?" >>> >>>Yes, is my humble bet. >>> >> >>The DB guys are _far_ sharper than you give 'em credit for. They developed >>_many_ of the ideas the commercial programs use (ie singular extensions, and >>so forth came _from_ the DB guys and ended up in chess genius, _not_ the other >>way around. Ditto for PVS. And other ideas... To make a statement like the >>above is _really_ an insult to a bunch of guys that are at least as good as >>_anybody_ in the world with respect to computer chess, and they are probably >>a lot better than anyone else... At least they have a performance record no >>one else has produced to date... > >Not my intention to be rude. The DB-team _did_ accomplish something unique. >Obvious with a lot of bright idears, etc., but see above. If NASA just ends up >with a firecracker, one have all the rights to be a little disappointed;) >Same thing with the DB-team - they were bound to come up with something strong. >The pollqustion was regarding of "we" think it's strong enough in view of the >time and money (conditions) spent. > >kim In my expert opinion, the answer is 'yes'. What they produced is remarkable, it is stronger than anything else around. Not even close, in fact. Could I do as well, given 10,000 times more computing speed? Eventually, probably. Better? very doubtful, because _they_ have worked hard too...
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.