Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:20:07 05/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1999 at 00:31:53, Mark Young 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. > >This is amazing, what was the cost of the deep blue machine in 1997? Why has >this technology gotten so cheap in just a few short years? What can we expect in >another 2 to 4 years after deepblue jr? (a billion NPS??? or more) > >Going from say a top of the line machine doing 1 million nodes a sec.(Quad PIII >with the right chess program to take advantage of the Quad chip computer) to >over 100M nodes per second. Are we likely to see this kind of performence jump >again in our lifetimes for home use? Is Deepblue jr the beginning of the end for >chess programming? > Hsu is re-fabbing the DB chip. The 1997 version searches about 2M nodes per second on a single chip, while the new version will search about 36M nodes per second (again single chip speed.) That can be made very economically in a 1,2,3 or 4 processor version. 1997 DB used 480 of these chips, and a 16 cpu IBM SP machine that was very expensive to drive the whole thing. The 200 dollar version will likely search 30-40M nodes per second, although it should be possible to make 'faster' versions (say 4 cpus on a single PCI card) at a somewhat higher price. No idea how pricing will really end up. And yes, it will change chess programming forever... >> >>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.
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.