Chat session with Feng-Hsiung Hsu, developer of Deep Blue
Tomboy
Feng-Hsiung Hsu is CrazyBird.
--- Game 598: CrazyBird vs CrazyBird ---
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: kib Ok welcome everyone! CrazyBird can you
introduce yourself?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: I started working on computer chess in 1985.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: in roughly 6 months, i created a single chip
move generator.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: this chip was the basis for chiptest, dt i &
dt ii for the next 10 years.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: deep blue are based on new chips.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the 1996 & 1997 matches used different chips.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from theinz: is there any chance that
Deep Blue will return?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: deep blue, as in IBM deep blue, is being
donated to Smithsonian this month.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: so Deep Blue will never return to the chess scene
again?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: theoretically, i can create a new version, but
only if there is a strong incentive to do so.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i don't think there will be one though.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: ok, next question:
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i am working on shogi on the side these days.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from Ram: can you ask him to explain the
technical differences that make deep blue better or was it just speed
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the 1996 & 1997 version of Deep Blue are
differnet mainly in the amount of chess knowledge.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: what was the difference?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: we went to Benjamin's excellent chess
school.:)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the hardware evaluation was completely
revamped.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: next question: Seems like people wants to know
what the exact meaning of ""12(6)" in the Deep Blue log files, can you
explain this?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 12(6) means 12 plies of brute force (not
counting the search extensions & quiescence).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 6 means the maximum hardware search depth
allowed.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from BenjaminBlue: with the success of
deep blue, why wasnt it released as comercial software to run on a pc
and do you think fritz would have played better powered by an ibm
RS6000
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: this means that the PV could be up to 6 plies
deeper before quiescence.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: deep blue is hardware, not software alone.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: kib what about the software?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the software cannot exist without the
hardware. it is tailored for the hardware.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Next question from gremista: does mr hsu think
it is possible to compare deep blue's strenght to deep fritz's
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is. Deep Blue is way stronger:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: next question from Schurick: What does he think
about today's chess programs and computers. And what is to his mind
the way on which they will be improved. thanks
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: they are good enough for us mortals:). it is
not quite clear how to improve them. speed is still important in
computer vs. computer.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: but we have some evidence that knowledge can
make a huge difference.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Next question from fishbait: I heard that you
guys ran Deep Blue on the opening books and found some Theoretical
Novelties. Have those / will those be published, and if not, why
not?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is just not easy for software program to
add chess knowledge.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i guess by now, they are published indirectly.
The grandmasters on the project get to use them:).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i don't work for ibm any more.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from CallTheFBI: is with today's
technology couldn't IBM create another Deep Blue that was more
powerful at a smaller cost?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: sure. deep blue was done in 0.6 micron cmos.
you can get 0.09 micron today...
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is even possible for a pocket pc to be as
powerful as deep blue.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Next question from reinforce: how do you view the
developement of chess knowledge and search techniques after 1997 and
the future of these aspects...I am interesting if you think the same
strategy will be
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i don't think there is any major development
within the last 5 years, other than intel's processor speed in crease
& the use of multiprocessors in commercial programs (crafty's
contribution)
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: next question from EeEk & fishbait: Are Deep
Blue's training games published somewhere? How many games did Deep
Blue play vs GMs that are available to look at? EeEk also heard that
Deep Blue DID play a game vs Deep Fritz, do you know anything about
this?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the training games are ibm properties, but a
few games are published, I believe. Chris Chabrid may have them
published somewhere. they are against deep blue jr. though. no, there
was never any game between deep blue and fritz, despite claims to the
contrary. we considered fritz too weak to be interesting.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: should be chabris.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: I heard that Fritz did play a match against Deep
Blue in Hong Kong 1995,according to one of the Fritz programmers, is
this not true?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: false advertisement. deep blue does not exist
until 1996.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the new chip was not completed until january
1996...
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: That's interesting.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: they relabeled the machine they played to take
advantage of the publicity.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from arconia: do you agree that by
developing this standard of chess play that the analytical side of
chess will now be more prevalent than the strategical side and that
this will have an effect on otb chess and the popularity of it?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i am afraid that it is beyond my expertise to
answer that question:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from mpjaya: - How many programmers
worked on the project Deep Blue in total?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it was a three-person project, Murray, Joe and
I.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: next question from theinz: Is it possible that
the games were published in the American Chess Journal?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: you mean the training games? i think it was in
some sort of game magazine.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: they are not really training games proper, but
the test games against grandmasters for benchmarking purpose.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: You said earlier that you believe Deep Blue is
stronger than Deep Fritz, what do you have to say to Kramnik's claim
that Deep Fritz is stronger?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: money talks.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: obviously :)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: actually that is not completely fair.
sometimes people get blindsided.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from TomBrooklyn: question is Was Deep
Blue a unique type of computer or was it comparable to any standard
IBM computer at the time with special software? If it was
comparable, which regular IBM product was Deep Blue similar to?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is not really a standard product, although
the base machine was (RS/6000 SP).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: in terms of real computation speed, deep blue
was comparable to something like a 10 teraops machine.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: ibm does not count that way when they
advertise though.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Next question from theinz: Can you give us the
last names for "Murray and Joe"? And do you think you could create a
chess program that could crush Deep Fritz?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: murray campbell and joe hoane. yes to the
second question, in simul even.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question: As a young chessstudent I read that
Bent Larsen claimed to have calculated that the possible possitions in
chess is about 10 in 120... When your team was visiting denmark in
1993 ? I read that the Deep Thought project had calculated it to be
about 10 in 120 too... Is this asessment still right ?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i don't think we did any calculation of that
kind. murray quoted something from literature, i believe.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Next question from pille: Which strength would
DeepBlue have actually after updating with new chips - which ELO
value? Thanks
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: we don't know. best guess would be kasaprov +-
100:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from schroeder: YOu were talking about
incentive to bring deep blue back ... how MUCH on an incentive are you
thinking about ?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: maybe more like emotional incentive. when i
quit ibm, i wanted to do it, but kasparov was not cooperating:). not
as interested these days.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from SJLIM: Is it possible to get any
proof of games between DB/DB2/DBjr and the commercial programs? Just
to finally dispell any doubt. Are game logs available from you?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it also depends on how easy it is. if i have
the shogi machine completed, it would not be so hard.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i no longer have access to the games or the
machine, for that matter. it is up to ibm. it is not that important to
them, anyway.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from EeEk and others: Can you tell us
something about your book? Why do you want people to buy it?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i started working on it in 1998. one of the
reasons for doing it is to let people know about the real stories. the
poeple invloved and so on. I also wanted to let people realize that it
was not just a machine, there are real people involved...
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: next question from guzzzler: What's your comments
on Kasparovs claim of faul play? And: Were the conditions fair, for
example in the Deep Fritz match, they are not allowed to change
anything but the opening book.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: no easy way around. you just have to do the
dirty work of adding the knowledge.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i have ample comments on kasparov's claim of
foul play in the book.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the conditions are fair, as long as you agree
that both sides can have secret weapons as in human matches.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: next question from Forsaken as a follow up:
After Kramnik wins this match and if they approached you about having
a Deep Blue 3 play Kramnik would that be incentive enough? (to return
with Deep Blue)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that might depend on my employer, as well as
the match condition. the fritz match conditions are only acceptable
when you are not interested in winning the match, i.e., you know that
you are competitive.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from TomBrooklyn: Since the Deep Blue
project was completed, have you thought of any ways to further improve
the program? If so, how much stronger do you think you could make
it? How many man-hours of work would you estimate would be required
to do so? Would you need the help of any GMs?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that is, if you are competitive, you would not
accept the conditions. sorry for the slip up.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: you always need the help of GMs. there are
many things we could have done, but elected to skip due to time
constraints. how strong could we make it? i don't think there is a
real upper limit.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from many: Back to your book. If I
wanted to buy the book, where do I go?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: currently, amazon seems to give a decent
discount (30% off). half.com might be lower though, but i have not
been checking up on that.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from SJLIM: Hsu, I'm wondering if you
would be open to having another discussion to answer more technical
questions from chess programmers. I ask this because I believe both
this session and your book are geared more to the general chess public
as opposed to computer chess groupies. =)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: hm, i guess that is possible. check with
darooha:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from MrSerious: Are the other two
programmers, Murrey and Joe involved in productions of chess computer
play?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i don't quite follow that question. we all
were involved in the programming, although i am more hardware
oriented.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: so they are STILL involved?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: oh, you mean whether they are still active?
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: right
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: joe has left for a DSP startup, and murray is
doing data mining these days, i believe.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: and ibm is giving deep blue to smithsonian...
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: don't know whether it would be an active
display or not.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from Celes: I understood that 2 chips
were mixed, old ones and new ones with more knowledge. Why didn't you
use just the new ones?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: sorry for the mixup. the 1997 deep blue only
used 1997 chips.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: all 480 of them.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from many: What is the chance of Deep
Blue returning after it was donated to the Smithonians? Are you
remorsefull that Deep Blue is going to the Smithsonian?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is an appropriate place for deep blue. deep
blue, as it was, probably won't ever return--both Joe and I are no
longer with IBM...
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i did get the right for the chip from ibm, so
a descendent is possible, just don't bet on it.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: kib question from wohl: Are there restrictions on
what the smithsonian may do with it? Can they set it up for visitors
to play?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that i don't know. it might depend on the
software status. they should be enough hardware left over to create
some working system.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from theinz: Does Mr.Hsu think the the
human mind would ever be as strong as the strongest man made computer?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: human mind is far more adaptive. "strong" is
an unclear terms to use in this context.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: and computers as of now are only idiot savant.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from darkone: For CB: Is your book
written more for technical people or the layman? Also, what is the
title of the book?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is for layman. "Behind Deep Blue: Building
the Computer That Defeated the World Chess Champion". the book is
really supposed to be out in november. so probably all the book
reviews won't come out until nov. amazon does have one reader review
already though.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: kib question from Frantic: According to what was
published DB was evaluating 200 million positions per second (vs 2.5
to 5 million for the 8-way Simmons server running Deep Fritz). How
fast would be Beep Blue today if the project continued?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it contains a few reference at the end of the
book for the more technically inclined.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: if we redo the chip in say, 0.13 micron, and
with a improved architecture, it should be possible to do one billion
nodes/sec on a single chip.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: so a trillion nodes/sec machine is actually
possible today.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from Naisortep: Do you think todays top
programs, such as the latest version of fritz, would be stronger than
Deeper Blue if running on Deeper Blue's hardware ?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i was planning to shock kasparov should he
agree to a new match:).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: no, they would not know how to make use of the
hardware:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Can you also explain how to translate nodes/sec
into positions a sec? what exactly does it mean?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is the same. nodes/sec == positions/sec.
just jargon.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, good to know.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: some people were asking my current status.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Another question that seems to be popular: Do you
think computers are able to SOLVE chess ? Could that ever happen?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i left ibm in 1999. joined compaq last year,
and got merged into hp this year. deep fritz is using a compaq
machine, so i am not going to be harsh on them:).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: solving chess? interesting question.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it is not impossible, although unlikely. it is
estimated that the total number of different chess positions is
something like 10^40.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: So any idea when this eventually will happen? :)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: square root of that is 10^20. this could be a
lower bound for the size of the proof tree.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: and 10^20 is not an impossible number.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Can you explain what you mean by "10^20" ?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 1 followed by 20 zeros. or 100 billion
billion.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Right, so that will take some time, even for the
strongest computer...
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that is an optimstic estimate though.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: kib question from ardee: Does "12(6)" mean 12
total ply or 12+6=18 total ply? This has the been source of huge
arguments for years!
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 12 total in terms of brute force. 6 is just
the max partition in hardware.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from parabola444: You mentioned Deep
Blue searched about 12 plies brute force + extensions, which is
similar to what pc programs these days get on a fast pc - since Deep
Blue hardware was much faster, how come it didn't search significantly
deeper ?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: to all the book readers, if you do like the
book, please tell your friends would might be interested. thanks.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: replace would with who:).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: we were using fairly extensive search
extensions, and the decision not to use null move pruning was an
deliberate one.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: there were several reasons.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from oddg: Back to the WC 1995, There
was an entry with the name Deep Blue (Fritz won against DB), did it
not have any relations to your Deep Blue? (EeEk: any idea how Deep
Blue's name got in there, is this completely false?)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: first, we were always at the top of the heap,
and the occasional error introduced by null move could cause us to
lose games to lesser programs.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, you will get some time to answer those
questions :)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: second, we observed that we were zugzwanging
null move using opponents, which made us suspicious of it.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: third, it is not clear how to incorporate with
singular extensions & null move pruning. they did not seem to be that
compatible. though Ferret seems to suggest that it is possible.
anyway, given that singular extensions are considered far more
important in creating deep lines, we keep what we know.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: fourth, and not least, speed was more than
adequate, and we did not need to resort to null move.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, very interesting.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from oddg: Back to the WC 1995, There
was an entry with the name Deep Blue (Fritz won against DB), did it
not have any relations to your Deep Blue? (EeEk: any idea how Deep
Blue's name got in there, is this completely false?)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: deep blue did not play in 1995, since it did
not exist yet. it was just deliberate relabeling on the part of
commercial vendors, for obvious reasons.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from TomBrooklyn: Follow up to
12(6) ply: What does max partition in hardware mean?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the program played was deep thought ii. which
was vastly inferior to deep blue in chess knowledge as well search
speed (1000 to 1 ratio in effective speed, 100 to 1 in raw speed)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: and we were as unlucky as kramnik is today:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from winechess: How far do you see
computer chess and A I coming in the next 10 yrs and how strong do you
think they will be as far a elo?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i will answer diep's question first. you can
find the isbn number in the news item for this lecture.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: or you can find it on the amazon web site.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: now back to the normal question. it is hard to
say. speed will increase for sure, intel is going to make sure of
that.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Could you estimate a rating in say, 10 years in
the future? Is that possible?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: but the knowledge part may be more difficult.
some of the things we did in deep blue are very expensive to do in
software, and i am not sure the commercial programmer would be willing
to go for them.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that might be an impossible question to
answer. it depends on the will of the people involved.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Thought so.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: There have also been a couple of questions
regarding the rematch. Why didn't IBM want to offer Kasparov a
rematch?
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: or accept the offer of a rematch who Kasparov
supposedly made
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: inside ibm, what i heard was that lou, ibm
ceo, was all for giving kasparov a rematch, purely for sportsmanship
reason.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: but with the incessant attacks on ibm, even
the best intentioned people had their limits...
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: so Kasparovs attack IBM made it impossible?
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: attack on, even
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: it played a very big part of it. ibm actually
had an advertisement/endorsement deal with kasparov--of course, it did
not go anywhere.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Next question from many: Do you follow the chess
world or play yourself? or are you only into computer chess?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the play part. no, i don't play chess--i only
played the world chess champion on tv:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: But you follow the news etc, and follow the
Kramnik-Deep Fritz match?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: well, i do play a few games. I am no better
than 1800. i stopped following chess or computer chess for a while.
but people contantly remind me of these things:).
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from SJLIM: Just for the record. Could
you explain to the chess public the history about a certain Chess card
that you wanted to build once upon a time?
Zoroastrian kibitzes: I don'tk know about the rest of you guys but
this guy is getting on my nerves
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: you mean the kasparov butt kicking device?
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: I guess so
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: just joking. since kasparov was not interested
in playing, i gave up.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: you could build something similar with FPGA's
today though.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Another personal question, from DiMarco: Mr. Hsu
I read in 1991 you had a Ph.D. where did you do your B.S. or where did
you grow up? How did you become interested in computer chess?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: that is how i am going to build a shogi
machine in the first step.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: In the book, there is an appendix that gives
details about my life before the project.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i was born in taiwan and attended national
taiwan university there.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, so everyone who wants an answer to these
personal questions, BUY your book? :)
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i was trained as an EE, hence the hardware
interest.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: my interest in computer chess was probably
triggered by media reports on computer chess.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: finding the book "chess skill in man and
machine" while in college was probably the final straw.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from Aldos: Is there such a think as
computer chess style, or all is about machine strength and optimized
algorithms?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: Crazybird was my nickname at high school.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: Are there different styles for different
computers? was that the question?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: hm, styles can come from different things.
search algorithm can make a big difference.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: I guess
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: I guess he means if computers can play like
humans if machine strength has anything do do with that
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: chess knowledge can do the same thing as well.
before the 1997 match, joel benjamin made an intresting comment.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: he said, "you know, sometimes deep blue plays
chess."
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Interesting!
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from Frantic: There have been media
reports that Deep Fritz is running on a Simmons 8-way server . You
mentioned Compaq - did you mean in the match vs Kramnik? Do you know
any details about that box?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: a few questions. my wife would kill me if i
stay here much longer:). nice talking to you all though.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: sorry, a few more questions.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: That's fine, thanks a lot for taking time to
answer the questions, I've received more than 300 questions, obviously
couldn't answer them all
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the simmons box? there is a photo that showed
compaq logo on chessbase web site...
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: The Questions and Answers will be saved and
stored and made available.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, a few more questions:
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from Karol: After what happened in game
2 vs. Kasparov, why did IBM never deliver the printouts of the game as
promised?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: they were delivered.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: ok, so that is false?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: kasparov has the relevant log, and of course,
everything is on the web today.
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: the entire log, that is.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from TomBrooklyn: The (revised) Question
Is: Have you read the book "A NEW ERA, How Garry Kasparov Changed
The World Of Chess" which is about Kasparov-Deep Blue 1996 and 1997
(and has a couple of pictures of you in it.) What is your impression
of that book?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i did not read that, and don't intend to.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, one last question:
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from EeEk: Do you think computers will
dominate the chess world, and if yes, when? Do you think chess has a
future then?
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: chess will always have a future as long as
people find it fun to play. will the computer dominate? nay, we will
just ban them:).
CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: thanks you all for coming. once again, if you
like the book, please do spread the words around, thanks.
EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Ok, that's it! Say Thanks to CrazyBird for his
answers! It was a pleasure!
Btw, does anybody know what the deal is with those logs? I heard they
were only published years later and might be doctored.
Tim Mann
wrote:
> Moderator is EeEk.
> Feng-Hsiung Hsu is CrazyBird.
Thanks for posting that!
> EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: Question from EeEk and others: Can you tell us
> something about your book? Why do you want people to buy it?
> CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: i started working on it in 1998. one of the
> reasons for doing it is to let people know about the real stories. the
> poeple invloved and so on. I also wanted to let people realize that it
> was not just a machine, there are real people involved...
I read a draft of Hsu's book for the publisher when they were
considering it. I recommend it.
> Btw, does anybody know what the deal is with those logs? I heard they
> were only published years later and might be doctored.
Yeah, and I heard that Elvis Presley might still be alive, and that the
government is hiding aliens in Area 41. Oops, I hear the black
helicopters coming for me! Better put on my tinfoil hat and hide.
--
Tim Mann use...@tim-mann.org http://www.tim-mann.org/
Tomboy
> government is hiding aliens in Area 41. Oops, I hear the black
> helicopters coming for me! Better put on my tinfoil hat and hide.
:):):)
Yeah, and you know what else, I bet Kramnik threw that game!
No but it's possible right? ;)
PSUGorilla
flight schedules.
"Guy Macon" < Guy Macon @ http://www.guymacon.com/home.html > wrote in
message news:pcKdna5Yj_8...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>
> Tim Mann <use...@tim-mann.org> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, and I heard that Elvis Presley might still be alive, and that the
> >government is hiding aliens in Area 41. Oops, I hear the black
> >helicopters coming for me! Better put on my tinfoil hat and hide.
>
> You laugh, but have you seen [
http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters.html ]?
>
> BTW, what ever happened to the Deep Blue hardware and software?
> Is it in a warehouse somewhere? Maybe next to the Ark of the
> Covenant from _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ ? :)
>
>
>
> --
> Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com
> Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com
> Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com
> Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com
>
Steven Schroeder
First of all want to thank Tomboy for the posting of this lecture and a good
job of editing it.
I was on ICC (www.chessclub.com) for the lecture and I think that this was
basically garbage.
First of all in the first half of the lecture, it appeared that A vast
majority (I will guess 80%+) were all questions from Tony Rook (Host on
ChessFM (www.chess.fm)) or from the admins. untill I did an "accidental"
mistell with:
schroeder whispers: grrr ,, this is fustrating ... tony rook is getting all
the priority on the questions ....
It was amazing that it took that whisper to get one of my 8 questions
immediately asked, and the 2nd half of the lecture only had like 1 question
from Tony Rook or an ICC Admin.
Mr. Hsu while brilliant in creating Deep Blue, did a very poor job in the
interview. He seem to be on boarderline mocking of deep fritz and otehr
software out there, and even claim he could write software that would crush
deep fritz. His Opioins were extremely baised (Like most parents would be
of their children) and bare minimum facts. Example when he mentioned that
log files from the match are post on the website ... question is WHAT
website? Thank you Mr. Hsu, I will start looking at the 1 billion+ web
sites out there for the log files.
And ICC seem to take care in AVOIDING asking contraversal questions and
permitted long arguements in the chess circles to remain unanswed since
there as no real question answered with real factual answers.
I understand that Mr. Hsu is promoting a new book through this lecture, but
I did not find it reasonable to have so many non-answers to the questions.
The biggest thing that bothered me, was that after awhile Mr. Hsu said that
he had to leave because his wife was wanting him to get off line, that is
not a problem within intself, what bothers me is that this lecture actually
started almost a full hour before the scheduled time and ended what would
have been like less then 45 minutes after its original scheduled time. You
would have figured he would have gotten the afternoon blocked off for this
and yet ICC claimed there was still 300+ questoins unanswered.
I do thank ICC for bring this oppurtunity to get to hear from one of hte
godfathers of computer chess, I think that a some prep work from ICC was
needed to make it a higher quality interview.
Now I am not one to 100% purely to point out problems without solution. The
complaint breaks down into 2 major points. (a) And interview subject that
did not really give good answers ... and (b) the questions asked were off
the cuff and not really prepared well.
As for point (a) .. there is not much you can do in regards to that. Even
major network programs get caught with a guest on their show that ends up
being a bomb.
point (b) ICC had advertised for like 4 dayus in their news items, and I
believe they sent out an email a day prior to that. Now this is where ICC
could have done a better job in prep work. They could have set up an
account were people several days prior could have submitted questions, and
the admins could have sifted through the questions and had the questions
read to ask, instead of asking Eeek(*) get stuck with the unfortunate job of
having to deal with a ton of messages flooding into his account and he was
having to quickly pull out questions
schroeder
(I was actually on ICC during the lecture)
"Tomboy" <idontbel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edea2717.02101...@posting.google.com...
Michael Burnem
> I read somewhere that the Deep Blue hardware is now used to generate airline
> flight schedules.
If you read the interview he sayed that it was being donated to the
Smithonians by IBM.(some sort of museum it seems)
--
Any sensual bliss in the world, any heavenly bliss,
isn't worth one sixteenth-sixteenth
of the bliss of the ending of craving. -Gotama Buddha
David F. Cox
The total number of possible positions is irrelevelant, the vast majority
will never be reached in a sensible game. This may be the discrepancy
between the 10^120 and 10^40 positions quoted, perhaps the possible vs the
probable.
That still leave a lot of positions to consider. If the solution is a draw,
then a substantial proportion of the sensible positions will have to be
considered before the situation reaches a generalised solution. e.g K and 2
knights vs king = draw .
If the solution is a forced win then there seem to be two possibilities. The
first is that the game will be won in the endgame, with best play. This will
be as complex as the draw situation.
The other possibility is that there is a forced win in the middle game. If
this is the case, the game may be solvable with current technology, but not
with the current mindset.
If there is to be a "leap across the table and grab 'em by the throat" sort
of win it will need a considerably different strategy than the usual.
I would see on possible strategy as being to occupy as much space as
possible by moving pawns forward in what would be regarded as a suicidal
fashion to deny black space. When black starts picking them off, as will
happen, then, with the white pawns out of the way, white can set about
removing the black ones and cramped defences with sacrifices, and use the
greater mobility to deliver the death blow.
In this sort of model pawn exchanges are good, piece exchanges are bad, and
complexity is the goal. The more complex the situation the greater the
chance of game winning multiple threats.
If there is such a win it will be hidden behind wide and deep shield of
"black has a strong advantage". Even if a human player ever strayed beyond
that shield the situation may well be too complex for a human to find the
win.
David F. Cox
"Guy Macon" < Guy Macon @ http://www.guymacon.com/home.html > wrote in
message news:elGdncU4UJ4...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>
>
> >CrazyBird: in terms of real computation speed, deep blue
> >was comparable to something like a 10 teraops machine.
>
> >EeEk: question: As a young chessstudent I read that
> >Bent Larsen claimed to have calculated that the possible possitions in
> >chess is about 10 in 120... When your team was visiting denmark in
> >1993 ? I read that the Deep Thought project had calculated it to be
> >about 10 in 120 too... Is this asessment still right ?
>
> >CrazyBird: i don't think we did any calculation of that
> >kind. murray quoted something from literature, i believe.
>
> >EeEk: Another question that seems to be popular: Do you
> >think computers are able to SOLVE chess ? Could that ever happen?
>
> >CrazyBird: solving chess? interesting question.
> it is not impossible, although unlikely. it is
> >estimated that the total number of different chess positions is
> >something like 10^40.
>
>
> So which is it? 10^40 or 10^120?
>
>
> (What's a little factor of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000 between friends?)
Paul Rubin
> Mr. Hsu while brilliant in creating Deep Blue, did a very poor job in the
> interview. He seem to be on boarderline mocking of deep fritz and otehr
> software out there, and even claim he could write software that would crush
> deep fritz. His Opioins were extremely baised (Like most parents would be
> of their children) and bare minimum facts.
I think he was talking about a program that would run on Deep Blue or
similar hardware. I don't have any trouble believing such a program
would kick the pants off Deep Fritz. Deep Fritz runs on an
8-processor x86 box with at most 4000 mips per cpu, or 32 giga-ops/sec
total and probably a lot less. As Hsu said, Deep Blue was effectively
a 10 teraop/sec machine, which would make the hardware 300 times
faster than what Deep Fritz now uses. And DB searched 200M nodes/sec.
Hsu said that with today's technology they could build a trillion
node/sec machine, another factor of 5000. They could search a billion
nodes/sec on a single chip. So DB is in a totally different league
from DF. I don't think Hsu was boasting or mocking when he said DB
could crush DF. DF's claims are a bunch of commercial hype.
Tim Mann
threads on this group...
On Tue, 15 Oct 2002 18:19:20 -0700, Guy Macon
< Guy Macon @ http://www.guymacon.com/home.html > wrote:
>
> David F. Cox <bigd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >How difficult it is to "solve" chess depends on the result.
> >
> >The total number of possible positions is irrelevelant, the vast
> >majority will never be reached in a sensible game. This may be the
> >discrepancy between the 10^120 and 10^40 positions quoted, perhaps
> >the possible vs the probable.
>
> That would mean that a computer that supposedly has solved chess and
> is kust picking moves from a book would fall to another computer that
> used the same book, steered the play to a "never be reached in a
> sensible game" position not in the book, and then applied far superior
> chessplaying ability. I think you have to have them all to solve
> chess.
The difference is not whether the position will be reached in a
"sensible" game, but whether it can be reached from the opening position
given that the computer plays according to the solution "book".
For example, suppose that the solution says that White has a forced win
beginning with 1. e4. Then the position immediately after 1. d4 need
not appear in the book, etc. Every reply to 1. e4 by Black must appear,
and of course some later positions that could also be reached by
transposition from 1. d4 will end up appearing too, but many positions
definitely need not be considered. The same thing happens at every move
of the game; no position that can be reached only if White has made an
inferior move along the way need be considered. Also, although from
some positions several moves for White may be equally winning, the
solution need only consider one of them; no positions that can follow
only from other moves at this point need be considered.
Things are not as nice if the result is a forced draw, because then you
have to prove both that White can force at least a draw no matter what
Black does, and that Black can force at least a draw no matter what
White does. So you end up with two trees, one in which there is only
one move given for White at each node, one in which only one move is
given for Black. This is still much smaller than the complete game tree
that considers every move at every node.
This, by the way, is why alpha-beta pruning yields exactly the same
result as a full brute-force minimax to the same depth in spite of not
looking at the whole tree. If you're lucky (or smart) in the first move
you consider from each node, at half of the nodes that will be the only
move you need to consider.
Of course, now someone will jump in and say that *they* don't consider
chess to be solved unless you know who wins from every possible legal
position, or even in every imaginable variant of shuffle chess. But the
normal definition of "solving" a game is just knowing how to force a win
for the player who wins, or a draw for both players, from the game's
standard beginning position.
Steven Schroeder
know that DB would problaly beat DF ... but it would have been nice if he
was a little more intelligence, like yours, behind such a statement. But if
you look at the interview on a whole, he was very boostful about it though.
And it seemed pretty obvious that the head to head questions were
referencing the DB of 1997 ... not an hypothetical model of 2002.
schroeder
"Paul Rubin" <phr-n...@NOSPAMnightsong.com> wrote in message
news:7x8z0z9...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
David F. Cox
A computer that has solved noughts and crosses (tic-tac-toe in U.S.) could
easily store all likely possibilities in an opening book. It would not need
much smarts to find satisfactory play if the opponent tries to go outside
that.
Chess is many order of magnitude more complex, but the same reasoning
applies.
The book would only run out at winning positions.
David F. Cox
"Guy Macon" < Guy Macon @ http://www.guymacon.com/home.html > wrote in
message news:GR2cnccNWtU...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>
> David F. Cox <bigd...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >
> >How difficult it is to "solve" chess depends on the result.
> >
> >The total number of possible positions is irrelevelant, the vast majority
> >will never be reached in a sensible game. This may be the discrepancy
> >between the 10^120 and 10^40 positions quoted, perhaps the possible vs
the
> >probable.
>
> That would mean that a computer that supposedly has solved chess and is
> kust picking moves from a book would fall to another computer that used
> the same book, steered the play to a "never be reached in a sensible
> game" position not in the book, and then applied far superior
> chessplaying ability. I think you have to have them all to solve
> chess.
>
> >That still leave a lot of positions to consider. If the solution is a
draw,
> >then a substantial proportion of the sensible positions will have to be
> >considered before the situation reaches a generalised solution. e.g K and
2
> >knights vs king = draw .
>
> Right. It doesn't need to keep a book of all KNN vs K positions.
>
> >The other possibility is that there is a forced win in the middle game.
If
> >this is the case, the game may be solvable with current technology, but
not
> >with the current mindset.
> >
> >If there is to be a "leap across the table and grab 'em by the throat"
sort
> >of win it will need a considerably different strategy than the usual.
>
> We know that such a win doesn't happen in the first N plies - computers
> have done an exhaustive search to N plies from the starting position.
> (how big *is* N? I know it's at least 12...)
David F. Cox
David F. Cox
"Tim Mann" :
David F. Cox
"Guy Macon" < Guy Macon @ http://www.guymacon.com/home.html > wrote in
message news:xmudnWX18ss...@News.GigaNews.Com...
>
> Tim Mann <use...@tim-mann.org> wrote:
>
> >The difference is not whether the position will be reached in a
> >"sensible" game, but whether it can be reached from the opening position
> >given that the computer plays according to the solution "book".
>
>
> Ah! I see the difference. Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Now if we only had a 32-piece tablebase... ;)
>
I've got one for 32 king's bishops.
David F. Cox