Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:28:43 05/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 1999 at 01:15:16, blass uri wrote: > >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? > >I do not believe that Deepblue jr is the beginning of the end for chess >programming. > >Deep blue is not close to be perfact and programmers can do better programs. > >Uri Yes, it is far from perfect, but perfect chess was never the goal, beating all human players was the goal. Once programs reach a certain point, 2900 maybe 3000 elo, what will be the point of increasing the playing strength in terms of the chess market and the playing public.
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.