Author: blass uri
Date: 23:08:06 05/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 00:28:43, Mark Young wrote: >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. The point will be better analysis of positions and helping correspondence chess players. Uri
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.