Author: Mark Young
Date: 15:48:56 05/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 1999 at 02:08:06, blass uri wrote: > >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. I think progress will be slow, because programmers need a cash market, some will take up the challenge, but the growth I think will be slow once there is a product that can play clearly better then any human play at 40/2. The correspondence chess market is very small, so has little money to interest many programmers. I do see a growth market for better teaching programs, and auto analysis programs, but as far as making a stronger chess program above 2900 or 3000 elo, I just don't see it. > >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.