Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:08:48 09/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2005 at 20:41:12, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On September 20, 2005 at 16:08:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 20, 2005 at 15:31:46, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>>I believe that Hsu has stated that it was running very very markedly slower than >>>what eventually beat Kasparov. It sounds like something that you could call an >>>earlier version though. >>> >>>bruce >> >>They played in the ACM event that same year, and used this in the tournament >>bulletin provided to all players/observers: >> >>"Deep Blue Prototype". Deep Blue software, running on the deep thought 2 >>hardware. > >Perhaps I am mistaken, but I do not believe that there was an ACM event in 1995. > The WCCC that year was the first we saw of the thing. Nope. The last ACM event was 1994 in Cape May New Jersey. "Deep Blue Prototype" was entered there as well. It's in the tournament bulletin. That's where I got the "DB software, DT hardware" explanation. It was a little blurb written by Monty after asking each of the participants about their boxes. I provide more accurate info tomorrow when I get to my office, where I have all this old paper stuff filed away... > >I do not believe it played another computer officially, ever. What? DB or DB prototype? DB "prototype" played several computer games, but it was not DB hardware. Hsu pretty well defined the hardware issues as he explained things in his book. DB hardware was not available until early 1996, a last minute deal... So far as I know, DB (real DB, either DB1 (1996) or DB2 (1997)) never played in any computer events of any kind, or any other kind of events for that matter, except the two kasparov events. They played lots of "internal" games against other programs and against GM players, but nothing ever public that I am aware of. > >If you win the argument that this thing wasn't even DB, DB *never* played >against another computer in a game whose score has been made public. That would be an accurate statement so far as I know. Clearly if you read Hsu's book, he gave the timeline for the development of the first generation DB chips, the hardware problems they had in fabrication, etc... > >Christophe bent rules in order to play it from the Siemens building in Paderborn >in 1999 (?), but when IBM figured this out they shut it down. They didn't want >anyone being able to conclude *anything*. Yes, but Murray/Hsu explained what that was if you recall. A single chip playing a "stateless" game (no repetition list, or anything else) set up to be a web application... > >>What that says to me is that the software search stuff (C code) was what they >>expected to use against kasparov in 1996, but the hardware chips were not ready >>until just prior to the Kasparov match due to some inductive noise problems, so >>they used the deep thought hardware instead. They claimed to be hitting 2M >>nodes per second, roughly, in that ACM event. >> >>I believe that the 1996 DB chip didn't add a lot of features over the last deep >>thought chips. But the 1997 DB chips added significant new features (in terms >>of hardware evaluation). So many in fact that they were unable to use them all >>for the 1997 match since the chips were again "hot off the presses" about a >>month before the event started... > >Yes, this is sounding like your standard hacked up mess, which is even harder to >draw any conclusions about. It's a reality-check for certain. That's why I no longer use Crays. It is pretty pointless to show up at a WCCC event with a program that might have played 3-4-5 games in the preceeding year. If we were lucky... I won the 1983 WCCC with a program that had _never_ played a game prior to round 1 of the event. So luck can be good at times... :) > >"We would have done better except we had bugs". > >No credit for hypothetical bug-free projects. > >>Technically, from chiptest in 1986 to deep blue 2 in 1997, all were "related" >>just as all versions of Crafty are related. But claiming that "deep blue" lost >>to fritz is a way-big stretch... Of course one has to consider the source of >>that statement as well, so maybe no big deal. :) > >I don't know if the statement is true or not, but I don't dismiss it out of >hand. > >There was apparently some debate about whether to call it DB. Whatever it was >that ran in 1995, IBM bankrolled it. > >bruce Yes they did. But they also bankrolled deep thought from 1989 or so as well when they hired the group after they finished their Ph.D.s at CMU. IBM wanted so badly to get the P/R for the name "deep blue" since it was a company-formed name based on ibm's usual "blue" color... The marketing types were hard at work even before the real ASICS were ever produced... That's something that would have driven me crazy... And it certainly would have driven me right off the project. Because every decision made was based on financial analysis, rather than scientific research goals...
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.