Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:15:44 05/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1999 at 01:54:17, Albert Silver wrote: >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 I just wanted it to be clear that the comment you replied to was Bob's, not mine. Dave > 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.