Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:20:28 09/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 18, 2005 at 10:45:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 18, 2005 at 01:44:33, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 18, 2005 at 00:51:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 18, 2005 at 00:36:15, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>> >>>>On September 17, 2005 at 23:53:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 17, 2005 at 22:33:58, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On September 17, 2005 at 17:02:09, ALI MIRAFZALI wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Take a time control of 40 in 2 with pocket fritz against crafty without nullmove >>>>>>and give crafty factor 1000 in nps extra. >>>>>> >>>>>>Deep Blue didn't use nullmove either. >>>>> >>>>>What does null move have to do with it? >>>>> >>>>>In 1996 there wasn't a computer on the planet that could beat deep blue. This >>>>>is almost 10 years later. >>>>> >>>>>What is the point of this discussion??? >>>>> >>>>>Just a very lame attempt at starting a flame war, about a statement I supposedly >>>>>made? (a statement I did _not_ make by the way)... >>>>> >>>> >>>>I dont know about the flamewar part (I thought Vincent did not start the thread) >>>>, but the 'without null move part' might be referring to the fact of deep blue >>>>not using it. >>>>Actually a good test would be : >>>> >>>>1) 1000x nps advantage >>>>2) No null move >>>>3) Use full singular extension as 'explained' by them. >>> >>>This is a completely worthless experiment. Take out my null-move search. >>>Attempt to graft their singular extensions onto my program. What about my >>>evaluation? My search extensions? How could one possibly add and remove bits >>>and pieces of Crafty, to make something into the approximate skill of deep blue? >>> >>>Next, why is this important? My 1000x statement had nothing to do with >>>null-move vs no null-move... >>> >>>> >>>>I suspect (3) _will_ kill your search and keep the searchdepths much below what >>>>the pocket fritz will get :) >>> >>>I don't think so. I had their full SE implemented in Cray Blitz. Its cost was >>>almost 2 plies. But then tactically it was reaching very deep stuff to offset >>>that. I've never found a workable SE that impressed me as "this is really good" >>>when it comes to Crafty... >>> >>>On the quad opteron, my search depth would then probably drop to 13 plies. But >>>then I get a factor of 1000X faster. My branching factor would be closer to 6 >>>with no null-move, which would ramp me up by 4 plies without null move, or 10 >>>plies with normal null move and a branching factor of around 2.0... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>So , even though Deep blue might have been invicible from programs of that age's >>>>standards - it will get royally kicked around by even weak amateur programs of >>>>today (bugfree ones ofcourse) running on modern hardware ! >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Mridul >>> >>>again, based on what? Null-move is not generally credited with making a program >>>200 Elo stronger. I might one day run some decent-length games with null vs >>>non-null to see what the actual rating difference would be for Crafty, then one >>>might actually extrapolate what 1000x faster hardware would do by actually >>>playing that time-odds match as well. Then we don't need to guess, speculate, >>>or anything else... >>> >>>I'll remind you that a few years ago (I don't remember exactly when although you >>>can find precise mention of the experiment here) I had the chance to play Crafty >>>(I think on some quad box, which one I really don't remember) against Cray Blitz >>>(less singular extensions, the version on the machine I had access to did not >>>have that version) on a T932. Thing was searching about 7M nodes per second. >>>It gave crafty a pretty good drubbing. And Cray Blitz on that machine could not >>>touch deep thought, much less deep blue, based on actual OTB games against them >>>at ACM events... >> >>I think that saying that it could not touch deep thought on that machine is >>misleading because I remember that Cray blitz that played on tournaments >>searched significantly less than 7M nodes per seconds. > >In 1994 we ran on this machine. In 1993 I believe we ran on a C90, which was >searching around 3M nodes per second... Both of these at the ACM events in >Indianapolis, Indiana, and Cape May, New Jersey... > > > > >> >>If you want to claim that latest Cray blitz on the machine that searched 7M >>nodes per second was probably weaker than Deep Thought then you cannot use data >>about tournaments when Cray blitz searched 200K nodes per second or 500 Knodes >>per seconds. >> >>Uri > >we use the C90, which was just under 1/2 as fast for the last two ACM events >that were held. Our NPS numbers went beyond 2.0M. You can not look at the >tournament reports to get NPS because we never knew what machine we would be >using at actual game-time, and had to "guess" on the entry form. But we did >play them on the C90 (deep thought II) as well as played a slower version of >deep thought on a 200-500K program on a Cray-YMP, and on a C90 with just 8 >processors. > >We often used 2-3 different machines during the course of a tournament, and >sometimes had to switch machines in the middle of a game, due to scheduling >issues. For example, in the game at the 1986 WCCC against HiTech, we had to >switch machines at either 8am or 8am CST, because of Cray's schedule at the >computer center we used. We switched from the fastest thing they made to >something slower. Happened regularly. > >In 1994, DT lost the first round game against MchessPro without ever playing a >move, due to a power failure at Watson center. They _still_ won the tournament >after giving away one free point. And not a person there was surprised, either, >further showing just how strong we all thought they were. I do not say that they were not stronger than their opponents at that time. The question is about comparison between them and Cray blitz that searched 7M nodes per search. I see that only in one event(event of 1994) Cray blitz searched 7M nodes per second. http://www.cs.umbc.edu/conferences/mtd95/mm_match/94champ.ascii I also see that it lost against Wchess and zarkov in that tournament and if I understand correctly it had bugs that were fixed during the tournament so the version that played later against Crafty was clearly stronger. My conclusion is that we have no data to get the conclusion that best deep thought was better than best Cray blitz. Uri
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.