Author: Albert Silver
Date: 22:54:17 05/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 12, 1999 at 17:02:44, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On May 12, 1999 at 16:13:45, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 12, 1999 at 15:16:59, Albert Silver wrote:
>>
>>>On May 11, 1999 at 18:28:53, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 11, 1999 at 18:05:21, Charles L. Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On May 11, 1999 at 13:11:16, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On May 11, 1999 at 12:48:22, blass uri wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On May 11, 1999 at 12:01:05, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On May 11, 1999 at 03:06:32, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On May 07, 1999 at 19:18:22, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On May 07, 1999 at 18:46:32, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On May 07, 1999 at 17:48:48, vitor wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>this is off topic, but why didnt you ever try making a hardware version cray
>>>>>>>>>>>>blitz? or is that some future project? it seems cray blitz was always up against
>>>>>>>>>>>>hardware programs like belle ,hitech, deep thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>Of those machines, only deep thought had dedicated chess circuits. The others
>>>>>>>>>>>were general purpose machines, running a computer program. Just like Cray
>>>>>>>>>>>Blitz. Cray Blitz was more than a match for all except Deep Thought, which had
>>>>>>>>>>>specialized hardware.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Why didn't Dr. Hyatt write special hardware circuits? That would be a pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>expensive hobby.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>actually they were _all_ hardware machines. Belle was the first special-
>>>>>>>>>>purpose chess machine... Hitech was next, built as a vlsi project at CMU,
>>>>>>>>>>and finally deep thought which also originated at CMU. Cray Blitz was the
>>>>>>>>>>only general-purpose computer program of the group, although CB was highly
>>>>>>>>>>coupled to the Cray architecture, with a vectorized move generator, and a
>>>>>>>>>>very good parallel search...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>And you are right, in that except for deep thought, Cray Blitz was stronger
>>>>>>>>>>than the others...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I was under the impression that Hitech was equal or (perhaps) slightly better
>>>>>>>>>than Cray Blitz. It lost on tiebreak at the '86 WCCC to your program, but won
>>>>>>>>>some of the North American tournaments in the '84 through '88 range, didn't it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Dave
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Berliner wanted everyone to believe this. And in 1985 it was even true as we
>>>>>>>>were searching 80K nodes per second to hitech's 120K or so. But in 1986 and
>>>>>>>>later, we were better. In 1989 we were 5X faster due to newer hardware...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>HiTech won the 1985 ACM event, we won the 1986 WCCC event (and beat HiTech in
>>>>>>>>the final round to win, in fact). I don't remember them winning anything beyond
>>>>>>>>that because in 1987 this pesky thing known as "chiptest" and then "deep
>>>>>>>>thought" was unveiled... :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>IMHO, HiTech was never "better" than CB. It may have been as good. But the
>>>>>>>>only 'down' time for Cray Blitz was the 1985 event where a poor change by me
>>>>>>>>produced some ugly pawn positional play that killed it in two games in 1985,
>>>>>>>>and in the second round of the 1986 WCCC before I found and excised the 4
>>>>>>>>lines of code that were killing it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>After 1987 there was never any doubt who was best from that point forward,
>>>>>>>>the author being Hsu...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I know that there is a doubt about it
>>>>>>>some people(not me) believe that deep thought is not better than Fritz3(P90).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They could prove to the public after they lost to Fritz that they are better
>>>>>>>than Fritz by playing 20 games between them and Fritz and doing the games public
>>>>>>>but they did not do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Everyone should read Hsu's paper in IEEE Micro. He mentions the 10-game match
>>>>>>that causes such an uproar of denials, and goes on to give results over a total
>>>>>>of 40 games... and it is pretty eye-opening....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not to mention the fact that he may be ending computer chess as we know it by
>>>>>>releasing a pc-compatible version of the DB chip. And for those that want to
>>>>>>talk about commercial programmers using this hardware, forget the idea, because
>>>>>>the concept is _flawed_. This is DB evaluation, and DB search. All that can
>>>>>>be modified is the first N plies of the search. So trying to graft this on to
>>>>>>some other 'engine' only produces a new flavor of deep blue, not a new flavor
>>>>>>of the base engine. The evaluation and last few plies of search are the heart
>>>>>>and soul of a chess program. And in this case, the heart and soul is pure
>>>>>>deep blue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Things are going to change in a serious way before long...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So what's the plan? Will there be a DB chip on a card we can plug into our PCs?
>>>>> It seems like this will help the programmers, by giving them something
>>>>>extremely strong as a reference for developing and tweaking their programs. On
>>>>>the other hand, a chip is hardware, and not so easy to tweak. It seems like a
>>>>>DB chip is advantageous to us.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Chuck
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Apparently there will be a PCI card that can be plugged into a PC just like
>>>>any other PCI card now (network cards, SCSI cards, etc.) This will include
>>>>one or more DB chips (probably not public at present.) I'd expect that a
>>>>single card with a single DB chip would likely sell for 200 bucks (US) or so
>>>>based on comments by Hsu in the past (IE we had a long conversation about this
>>>>in Cape May at the last ACM event a few years ago.)
>>>>
>>>>It will take him some time to (a) fab the newer DB chip, design the PCI
>>>>interface, (b) modify the current DB software part to work with the new PCI
>>>>hardware and on a pc platform, (c) do whatever else is needed to provide a
>>>>commercial-quality product interface.
>>>>
>>>>DB's chess processor is static in regard to what it can evaluate and how the
>>>>search is done, it is dynamic in that evaluation weights can be modified
>>>>easily or disabled (set to 0).
>>>>
>>>>Hsu estimated 30 million nodes per second on a single chess processor. This
>>>>using the same 'approach' as the current DB chip, only using a more modern fab
>>>>process. That would be an absolute killer... and using multiple copies of
>>>>such a chip, a PC could quite easily search way over 100M nodes per second and
>>>>be as strong as DB was in 1997.
>>>>
>>>>It will be very interesting... although the concept of computer chess is going
>>>>to change, since nothing else will be within a couple of orders of magnitude
>>>>of the strength of that thing...
>>>>
>>>>Again, most of this was discussed in the current issue of IEEE Micro, which you
>>>>should be able to find (at least) at a local university library.
>>>
>>>Just so that I understand this better: the PCI card would not be anything like
>>>the defunct Chessmachine as one cannot adapt a new program to it. One can only
>>>change the settings and weights of the already preprogrammed DB program. Of
>>>course, with the 6000 or so (if memory serves) evaluation elements this may not
>>>be such an issue, but still it does mean that any tinkering one does will be
>>>similar to the 'personalities' of programs such as CM6000. Will he create a
>>>program that allows users to easily modify the settings and weights? I would
>>>imagine that if he did, this would greatly increase the interest (which should
>>>already be enormous) in it. Personally I think that would be extremely
>>>interesting as I'll be honest in saying that while I have no doubt DB is the
>>>most knowledgeable program around, I think it could greatly benefit from some
>>>major tweaking.
>>>
>>> Albert Silver
>>
>>
>>I would imagine that the 'tuning' software would definitely be part of the
>>package... ie the ability to tune the evaluation. Although I am not sure
>>it needs 'major' tweaking, knowing the people that are working on it...
>>
>>and the only match we have seen looked pretty decent to me. :)
>
Of course it probably seemed terribly presumptuous of me to put it that way, but
I really expected DB to play better than it did considering the depth of its
calculations and amount of knowledge it had. I just figured that with that much
knowledge it was probably monstrously difficult to balance properly, and that
despite the expert aid could have benefitted from more testing and time. The
whole concept of having it at home seems too good to be true though. Time will
tell. If it does come through then chess will never be the same. If computers
and micros have evolved and changed many things on how we approach chess, this
will be a hammer blow that will really change everything. Think of having such a
program analyzing one's openings or worse yet, think of what will happen to
correspondence chess!
Albert Silver
Albert Silver
>Yeah, though maybe some minor tuning is possible. In a recent paper they said
>their search extension scheme was ad hoc (not that anyone else's is really any
>different. :) So anyway, some potential is there.
>
>While we are wishing, I would like to see the software part of the search
>adjustable so that null-move can be tried there.
>
>Dave
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.