World Championship of Computers
Wolfgang Koehler
In a local news paper I read that there was a championship of computer programs
in Hongkong lately. The interesting point was for me that the PC-program "Fritz"
from Hamburg, Germany had won the competition.
It beat all special designed hardware platforms, like the 13 ton "Star Socrates"
which has 1824 double processors and the top favorite "Deep Blue", which is
the successor of the famous "Deep thought".
Pretty amazing if true.
Can anyone confirm this and supply additional information about this event ?
wolf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
... always look on the bright side of life ... (Monty Python)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Koehler wo...@first.gmd.de
GMD-FIRST an der TU Berlin German National Research Centre
Tel. (Berlin 030) 6392-1819 for Computer Science
Peter Gillgasch
|> In a local news paper I read that there was a championship of computer programs
|> in Hongkong lately. The interesting point was for me that the PC-program "Fritz"
|> from Hamburg, Germany had won the competition.
|>
|> It beat all special designed hardware platforms, like the 13 ton "Star Socrates"
|> which has 1824 double processors and the top favorite "Deep Blue", which is
|> the successor of the famous "Deep thought".
|> Pretty amazing if true.
|>
|> Can anyone confirm this and supply additional information about this event ?
I can confirm this since I was there (^8. The final standings
were:
------ From hkt...@ee.cuhk.hk (Tsang_Hon_Ki)
Final Standings from the 8th World Computer Chess Championships
played at the Chinese University of Hong Kong:
(SOP=sum of opponent's score from 1st 5 rounds)
Posn. Program Points SOP Cumulative score
1 Fritz 4/5 (5/6) 12 10
2 StarSocrates 4/5 (4/6) 12.5 10
3 Deep Blue 3.5 16.5 13
4 Frenchess 3.5 12.5 8.5
5 Junior 3.5 10.5 8
6 Wchess 3 15.5 10
7 Hitech 3 15 10
8 Chess Genius 3 15 9.5
9 Rebel 3 14 9.5
10 Zugzwang 3 11.5 7
11 Schach 2.5 16.5 9.5
12 Cheiron 2.5 12 9.5
13 Virtuachess 2.5 10.5 6.5
14 DarkThought 2 16 8
15 SOS 2 13.5 8.5
16 Zeus 2 12.5 7
17 Ferret 2 13.5 6
18 Pandix 2 11 6
19 Phoenix 2 11 5
20 Ulysses 2 8.5 4
21 Nightmare 1.5 9.5 3.5
22 Gandalf 1.5 9 4
23 Lchess 1 11 4.5
24 Woodpusher 1 10.5 3
Most of the PC programs, including the new World Champion, Fritz, were
running on stock Pentium 90MHz machines with 16MB RAM. Notable exceptions were
Chess Genius, Wchess and Virtuachess which ran on faster machines shipped
personally to Hong Kong by the respective programmers (they were probably
using Pentium 120MHz machines).
The five machines which required overseas internet connections were Deep Blue,
Star socrates, Zugzwang, Hitech, and Frenchess. Reasonably short netlag of
typically 3 seconds per move were experienced using the IBM OS/2
network to access internet, and the times were accounted for by adding about 3 minutes
to the clocks of the network machines.
----------
The win of Fritz was of course quite a surprise, although they
were seeded at 4th place or so. BTW it was *not* Fritz3 according
to Frans Morsch it was a "slightly modified" version with a
brand-new opening book. I think that Frans won the tourney because
of the superior "tuning" of the *combination* of chess engine/opening
book plus the incredibly aggressive style of play of the engine.
We have seen sacrificies that one would call "speculative" at best
and while Fritz did not really realize that it made a real crushing
move it turned out to be real good... This program just tries everything
to keep things going! Very impressive.
One final note: It was not Deep Blue who lost against Fritz.
It was Deep Blue Prototype. The machine that will surprise Kasparov
next February in Philadelphia *is* Deep Blue.
Fingers crossed...
-- Peter
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter W. Gillgasch
Klosterweg 28/I-113 email gil...@ira.uka.de
76131 Karlsruhe/Germany Phone ++49/(0)721/6904255
Robert Hyatt
Wolfgang Koehler <wo...@doppel.first.gmd.de> wrote:
>
>In a local news paper I read that there was a championship of computer programs
>in Hongkong lately. The interesting point was for me that the PC-program "Fritz"
>from Hamburg, Germany had won the competition.
>
>It beat all special designed hardware platforms, like the 13 ton "Star Socrates"
>which has 1824 double processors and the top favorite "Deep Blue", which is
>the successor of the famous "Deep thought".
>Pretty amazing if true.
>
>Can anyone confirm this and supply additional information about this event ?
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ... always look on the bright side of life ... (Monty Python)
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Wolfgang Koehler wo...@first.gmd.de
>GMD-FIRST an der TU Berlin German National Research Centre
>Tel. (Berlin 030) 6392-1819 for Computer Science
>
>
>
Yes it did win, an impressive accomplishment. No it did not beat
Deep Blue. Deep Thought played in the tournament, the new hardware
was not ready for Hong Kong. In fact, Fritz beat *Socrates,
which ran on the Paragon you mentioned (although I thought it was
an 1824 node machine).
Good result, to say the least.
--
Robert Hyatt Computer and Information Sciences
hy...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Raymond Helie
Peter Gillgasch <gil...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
; [..]
; The win of Fritz was of course quite a surprise, although they
; were seeded at 4th place or so. BTW it was *not* Fritz3 according
; to Frans Morsch it was a "slightly modified" version with a
; brand-new opening book. I think that Frans won the tourney because
; of the superior "tuning" of the *combination* of chess engine/opening
; book plus the incredibly aggressive style of play of the engine.
; [..]
; We have seen sacrificies that one would call "speculative" at best
; and while Fritz did not really realize that it made a real crushing
; move it turned out to be real good... This program just tries everything
; to keep things going! Very impressive.
;
; One final note: It was not Deep Blue who lost against Fritz.
; It was Deep Blue Prototype. The machine that will surprise Kasparov
; next February in Philadelphia *is* Deep Blue.
Peter,
This is not meant to be an attack on you personally, I have just heard
this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
people about what happened in Hong Kong.
This is addressed to all the people who have made excuses about
the results of the World Computer Championship in Hong Kong:
So /what/ that it was not Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? Who cares?
Whatever version /was/ playing there lost under /those/ tournament
conditions (however bad they were), and if the prototype was such a
poor comparison to one that will be ready in February, then why
the hell was it allowed to play? ie., if you /are/ going to enter
a weaker version, then don't cry and complain if your weaker
version loses. "Well, it wasn't the /real/ version.. <ahem>."
Please.
OK, note: It was not Fritz that won against the Deep Blue
Prototype. It was the Fritz Prototype. The machine that will
surprise the real Deep Blue during their next encounter *is* Fritz.
See the point?
And for those involved in the "fairness in computer chess" debate:
some (not all, I know) of the same people who claim that the chess
program's opening book is an intrinsic part of the program turn around
and say "well, Fritz probably had a /special/ opening book that
gave it an advantage". So /what/?!! That's intrinsically part
of the program, like you've been arguing. That makes it a better
program, in /that/ particular respect. Stop contradicting yourself.
If people are not happy with the results in Hong Kong, then do
something /constructive/: petition the ICCA to change the format,
continue working on your program's weaknesses (which may be the
opening book).. move on.. stop wasting your time justifying
your displeasure via excuses..
And if you /are/ happy about the results, stop trying to act like
it means something about those that didn't win. It doesn't.
Now don't get me wrong, I could care less which program is the
best (as you'll probably notice by my disagreement on perspectives
given by both sides of the opposition). In fact, in /my/
opinion, the tournament in Hong Kong proved nothing about /any/
of the programs: How often do you see a significant tournament (much
less a world championship) played by the top 25 human players in the
world in a 5 round swiss? You don't. And what would /it/ prove
if you saw it? Not much. You need a round robin to /begin/
to get close to proving much of anything in such a case as to
the relative strengths of all the participants. And even /then/,
it is not total proof, but you're getting closer.. A poor
tournament format was given to award some program the hyped title
(certainly not a well-grounded title yet) of Computer World Champion.
That's nice. In truth, it will take more than a tournament like the
one actually given to determine the /true/ champion. One more like
the one for the human world champion (no matter how difficult to
implement) would obviously be much more valid. You get the idea..
A program might have a better track record against strong players
/over a period of time/, and that would be something I'd take
a bit more notice of (and actually, that, I think, Deep Blue can
make claims to). A program might prevail in a double
round robin event above all of it's competitors, and that
would be something I'd take more notice of. And some program
might beat another worthy competitor in an extended match (12 or
more games?), and again that would be something I'd take more notice
of. Give up on the prototype bull, the opening book tweaking,
the power-loss luck .. keep making the program's better, the
tournament formats more realistic, and your program's results,
over time, will speak for themselves -- people who are paying
attention (and there are many) will notice what is /really/
happening..
And as mentioned above, maybe the ICCA /should/ reconsider the format of
the tournament. Since so much hype and commercial propaganda hinges
on who wins and loses, why not at least make the tournament
format (ie, round robin, more rounds) more realistic to give
the subsequent claims that are made more validity?!! It seems
ridiculous to make any decisive claims from this tournament that
had so many participants (24?) and only 5 rounds -- and this in
turn makes it ridiculous to have to explain anything with excuses..
Again, this was not an attack on you, Peter. And this is, after
all things said, my opinion. Take from it what you want..
Ray [he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu]
Don Getkey
It does seems odd (and unfair) that the Deep Blue team was able to
secure a
match with the human World Champion without actually earning it? I know
money
talks. Still, in light of its back seat performance at the WCCC, you would
think that an opportunity of grand promotion was/is being missed? What I
mean
is, why not capatalize on the real theme everyone is looking for i.e. "man
vs.
machine"? Let the computers battle out their own interzonals to decide a
clear champion who then could be entered in to the PCA or FIDE rounds
leading
to a lagitimate meeting with the/a human World Champion.
With how well the micros have done against the big boys, its a real shame
that the computers have no organized tournament standards to abide by,
that
could result in a lagitimately serious challenge to the human, in high
drama
with maximized profit making potential for all. Such promotion of chess
would be the biggest thing since the antics of GM Fischer!
yours in chess,
Don Gaetke USCF 1279
Coon Rapids MN
Benjamin J. Tilly
he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
> In article <3tcg8v$1...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
> Peter Gillgasch <gil...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
> ; [..]
> ; The win of Fritz was of course quite a surprise, although they
> ; were seeded at 4th place or so. BTW it was *not* Fritz3 according
> ; to Frans Morsch it was a "slightly modified" version with a
> ; brand-new opening book. I think that Frans won the tourney because
> ; of the superior "tuning" of the *combination* of chess engine/opening
> ; book plus the incredibly aggressive style of play of the engine.
>
> ; [..]
> ; We have seen sacrificies that one would call "speculative" at best
> ; and while Fritz did not really realize that it made a real crushing
> ; move it turned out to be real good... This program just tries everything
> ; to keep things going! Very impressive.
> ;
> ; One final note: It was not Deep Blue who lost against Fritz.
> ; It was Deep Blue Prototype. The machine that will surprise Kasparov
> ; next February in Philadelphia *is* Deep Blue.
>
>
> Peter,
>
> This is not meant to be an attack on you personally, I have just heard
> this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
> to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
> people about what happened in Hong Kong.
>
They are not "excuses"...they are explanations of what is going on. All
sides, the Fritz team included, believe that the IBM computer was the
strongest entry, and it was due to a combination of factors that it
lost. (One of those things being a phone line crashing at a critical
moment, another being that Fritz got a good start in the opening, and
the last being a tournament system that makes it more likely that
random factors like this would cause an upset.) But any loss is due to
a combination of factors, and the victory in the event clearly went to
Fritz. In the process of losing the IBM team learned some weaknesses
that they have to deal with, ect.
> This is addressed to all the people who have made excuses about
> the results of the World Computer Championship in Hong Kong:
>
> So /what/ that it was not Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? Who cares?
> Whatever version /was/ playing there lost under /those/ tournament
> conditions (however bad they were), and if the prototype was such a
> poor comparison to one that will be ready in February, then why
> the hell was it allowed to play? ie., if you /are/ going to enter
> a weaker version, then don't cry and complain if your weaker
> version loses. "Well, it wasn't the /real/ version.. <ahem>."
> Please.
>
There is the minor detail that the stronger one has to be BUILT before
it can play. Secondly the actual team did not do much crying and
complaining, as I recall they were quite matter-of-fact about it.
> OK, note: It was not Fritz that won against the Deep Blue
> Prototype. It was the Fritz Prototype. The machine that will
> surprise the real Deep Blue during their next encounter *is* Fritz.
>
The machine that was playing the tournament has never been, should
never have been, and by people who know the situation will never be
called Deep Blue. That is just not its name. By contrast Fritz is the
name of the entry that one. When next they meet again it will be an
updated version of Fritz, but it will still be called Fritz. Obviously
both of the entries will be different from last time.
> See the point?
>
Yes. The point is that you do not know what the computers have been
called all along. DTII is not Deep Blue, and it shows ignorance to call
it that. It is not a question of "excuses", it is a question of knowing
the names that were properly given to the computers involved.
[...]
> If people are not happy with the results in Hong Kong, then do
> something /constructive/: petition the ICCA to change the format,
> continue working on your program's weaknesses (which may be the
> opening book).. move on.. stop wasting your time justifying
> your displeasure via excuses..
>
I believe that the IBM team is improving their machine...
[...]
Ben Tilly
Robert Hyatt
Your comments about the "format" are right on target. This has been
a point of discussion for years. Several world championships ago there
was talk of emulating the human championship "cycle" albeit it a
shorter format. Ie, a normal tournament, to choose the challenger,
followed by a match to decide the champion. Don't know why it
never happened, but it was probably because the "sponsors" (usually
a world-class conference like IFIPS or whatever) want the event to
happen while the conference is in session.
I suspect that we are about to see the last of these events
anyway. I would like to see computer-only tournaments survive
for the "record" but the world-championship event has far outlived
it's usefulness now. It makes more sense to find a non-NC USCF
event and enter there.
Robert Hyatt
I've said this before, and I'll say it one more time. Your first
comment is *way* out of line. Deep Thought has proven itself the
best program in the world over the past 7 years or so. Yes, it lost
to Fritz in Hong Kong. Kasparov loses games all the time, yet we
aren't deluged with a series of "Kasparov not deserving of title"
posts. Check the record of deep thought, then check the record
of the rest of the computer chess world. *then* you will have enough
data to make a valid comparison, and it'll be quite different from
what you posted above.
As for money, rest assured that if Intel thought that any PC-based
program had a real chance, they would come up with the money on the
spot. It's too big an opportunity to miss. I'm still skeptical
that the deep blue hardware will be enough to beat Kasparov. If
not, then the PeeCee machines *certainly* aren't ready. The money
would be there *if* the challenge was there. One day, PeeCees will
probably be capable of such performance, but not yet and not for quite
a while either.
Peter Gillgasch
|> Peter Gillgasch <gil...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
|> ; he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
|> ; |> In article <3tcg8v$1...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
|> ; |> Peter Gillgasch <gil...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
[ I snip a lot, sorry ]
|> So a /much/ faster version of a program makes the slower one a prototype?
|> And if the new version is not /much/ faster, then it is merely a new
|> version of the same old program? Just curious about your definition
|> (which is, by the way, /your/ definition -- not a fact that everyone
|> is abiding by, no matter how sensible it may feel to you)..
The name made the prototype the "Prototype". Simple. If the creators
of the machine call the machine "Deep Blue Prototype" and if every
offical printed matter about the tournament accepts this then everybody
should respect this.
|> OK.. I don't know if this is in response to anything I said?
This was in response to your Q why the program was "allowed to play".
If a program is not allowed to play then this implies that the ICCA
decided that it is not strong enough for such an event. This is certainly
not the case here (^8. I don't want to accuse you for having said this.
I just wanted to answer your question.
|> Yes, fine. But if a new and improved version in the making is about
|> to be released, don't mention that fact over and over again if the
|> current one doesn't perform as well as expected (or even if it does). This
|> directed towards people who have made several posts about this,
|> not the members of the team itself (or maybe not even you)..
Ok, I accept this as not directed to towards me. My question is: Someone
asked for the final standings of the event. I posted them. The guy who
asked was unsure whether some article in some paper was true. I simply
that that it is true but told him that the paper (or his post) didn't
get the name of Deep Blue Prototype right. Just for the sake of completenss
I added some info about the version of Fritz that was used there.
Note that I didn't write "the Deep Blue prototype". Big difference.
Now, who makes all the fuss about that ?
|> ; |> OK, note: It was not Fritz that won against the Deep Blue
|> ; |> Prototype. It was the Fritz Prototype. The machine that will
|> ; |> surprise the real Deep Blue during their next encounter *is* Fritz.
|> ; |>
|> ; |> See the point?
|> ;
|> ; Yes. I don't want to attack you personally but it is really stupid,
|> ; sorry.
|>
|> You showed incredible restraint.
Probably. Only one cup of coffee, as I told you... (^8
|> ; You are trying to mimick my statement about the upcoming
|> ; Kasparov/Deep Blue event.
|>
|> You're right .. and I think it's a sufficiently accurate parallel;
|> sufficient enough to get my point across.
Nope. It is not accurate at all. More later.
|> ; Many people reading this newsgroup are
|> ; obviously not aware what the non-prototype version of Deep Blue is
|> ; and they are basing their evaluation of Deep Blue's chances on
|> ; the history of the Prototype...
|>
|> Then why don't you help the discussion and tell us exactly what the
|> non-prototype version of Deep Blue is. What makes it so different
|> that you consider the new version a new program and the old one
|> a prototype, rather than just /simply/ saying we now have an
|> incredibly enhanced version of Deep Blue??
Ok, I'll explain that. Deep Blue Prototype is a combination of a
RS/6000 workstation (nice machine) with software that searches the
upper part of the game tree. This software is pretty clever, with
search extensions and other fancy stuff. When the depth of the search
reaches a certain depth the tree is delegated to custom VLSI chips
(I think they used 12 in Hong Kong). These custom chips search about
500,000 positions per second - each. Actually they are a set of chips,
one VLSI move generator and some off the shelf hardware that handles
search control and evaluation. The parallelism used by that system
is based on the idea that the "conventional" program running on the
RS/6000 does not wait for the special hardware to return from the
search. It expands some other nodes (this is the tricky part) and
delegates them to another special hardware chip set. As soon as
one of those chip sets is done with the search the result of the
computation of that chip set is communicated to the conventional
program. The bottleneck in that design is the RS/6000 and the fact
that the VLSI chip is relatively slow compared to current technology.
The move generator was build in 1988 and the technology was obsolete
even then (but it was used because it was a project financed by academia).
Furthermore since it is a chip set the machine cannot run with max
speed because the off the shelf hardware chips are simply not fast
enough (and there is always a delay if you do communication between
two chips).
Now. Deep Blue. No prototype. I hope I can explain that too, someone
who knows that better than me correct me please.
Deep Blue uses a single chip implementation that plays chess. It generates
moves, does search control and evaluation and repetition detection all on
one single chip. This chip is about 40 times more complex in terms of
transistor count than the move generator chip used by Deep Blue Prototype.
It probably uses better technology in terms of circuit density and clock
speed. 2 of those chips are as fast as the complete Deep Blue Prototype. Now
comes the interesting stuff. Since the machine is a single chip it makes sense
to produce a lot of chips and use them in parallel - this forces the
designers to integrate the tricky business that was handled by the RS/6000
on the chip as well. The Deep Blue team plans to use 256, 512 or even 1024
of those single chip chess machines in parallel. Now if this does not
deserve a different name, than the Ferrari F40 should be called Ford Model
T, because it has four wheels and is useful for transportation.
|> ; Now, when Fritz *is* about a factor of 10,000 - 5,000 times faster
|> ; than the so-called "Fritz Prototype" you mentioned your statement
|> ; would make sense. That is the speedup Fritz would need to be as
|> ; fast as the Deep Blue that is going to play, if my math is not
|> ; lacking here... Did have only one coffee this morning, so don't
|> ; rely on this (^8. Frans is good. But not so good.
|>
|> So a speed factor increase of 10,000 - 5,000 times is what qualifies
|> something as changing from a prototype to a new program, versus just
|> an enhanced version of the same program? And upholding /this/ definition
|> as some sort of fact, you then go on to label my parallel as stupid. So
|> I guess that makes your definition the totally correct one? It sounds like
|> an /opinion/, not a fact .. and nothing is deemed right or wrong
|> based on opinions (unless /everyone/ agrees on something; and in
|> this case, it is hardly obvious that the majority of people would agree
|> with you).
I hope that the above paragraph I wrote to explain the difference cleared
that up. I hope it is obvious now. It is a completely different piece of
hardware/software.
|> That's not what I've seen.. it has been said that Fritz' opening book
|> was probably tweaked to take advantage of some opening that Deep Blue
|> has played before .. implying a certain degree of unfairness..
So what? This is usual business. It does not imply any unfairness. I
think we both aggree on that. Neither a chess player nor a programmer
would call this unfair.
|> ; Everybody who was in Hong Kong accepts the book
|> ; and endgame databases as part of the programs. No one contradicts
|> ; himself.
|>
|> Was I talking about everyone in Hong Kong? If you'll reread the post
|> you're responding to, you'll see that I said this was directed at anyone
|> who continues making the sort of complaining statements that I keep
|> hearing. I don't remember limiting myself (or even specifically
|> /including/) people in Hong Kong.
You did write a followup on an article of mine. If you want to yell at
all people that "complain" than use a new topic. Otherwise I react
on what you wrote. Simple.
|> I hope you didn't take the previous post as an issue that was
|> directed at you specifically. If you did, then that is my fault
|> for not making it clear enough..
No I didn't. But maybe we have to stay focused. I can only speak for
myself, so if you want to discussion something than don't complain
about "anyone that...". This won't help us.
|> ; |> And if you /are/ happy about the results, stop trying to act like
|> ; |> it means something about those that didn't win. It doesn't.
|> ;
|> ; I suppose that goes for all the people who think that a PC based
|> ; program is better than any mainframe/special purpose hardware
|> ; because the PC programmers are so clever and the big iron guys
|> ; are so stupid, correct?
|>
|> Where did /that/ come from?!! Yes, it goes for /any/ program that
|> wins, and their supporters then making inferences about the losses
|> of the rest of the programs.. A PC program won, didn't it? And
|> I still said what I said. As I said before, I could care less
|> what program is best .. I'm interested in what the best programs
|> are doing, PC based /or/ mainframe/special purpose hardware..
After Hong Kong many people made remarks like "IBM should fire Hsu et
al. and buy Richard Lang". Just as an example. I aimed at that remarks.
|> And as far as what you have just brought up, that is another can of worms..
Please, let's keep that closed.
|> You tell me.. lighten up on the more intense reactions to what you
|> don't agree with. If you think something was stupid, just explain
|> why and get your point across .. names only weaken your argument..
I did try. No names I think.
Benjamin J. Tilly
he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
> Benjamin J. Tilly <Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> ; he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
> ;
> ; [..]
> ; > This is not meant to be an attack on you personally, I have just heard
> ; > this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
> ; > to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
> ; > people about what happened in Hong Kong.
> ; >
>
> ; They are not "excuses"...they are explanations of what is going on.
>
> They are explanations when they are given once .. when you start to
> hear it over and over again in so many different ways, it begins to
> sound like whining. They /could/ have been explanations, but after
> hearing them 20 times..
>
The reason why they come up again and again is that there seems to be
an endless stream of people who have not followed the thread closely
enough, who step in to give their own 2 bits, who people then correct.
When people like you stop coming forward asking the same basic
questions, then people like me will stop repeating the same basic
answers.
> ; All
> ; sides, the Fritz team included, believe that the IBM computer was the
> ; strongest entry, and it was due to a combination of factors that it
> ; lost.
>
> That's great. I'm talking about people who present that statement
> 20 different ways .. enough already: state it once and once only,
> lest it become whining.. it's been said enough times already..
>
It would help if you stop indicating that you have not yet got the
point.
[question about why the stronger version did not play in the tournament
deleted]
> ;
> ; There is the minor detail that the stronger one has to be BUILT before
> ; it can play.
>
> Thank you for pointing that out.
You are welcome...but this is HARDLY the FIRST time that somebody has
pointed out this detail.
> The point: As far as I'm concerned,
> if the stronger one is not operational yet, then your "prototype" /is/
> your current version. Why are you so adamant about what the correct
> /name/ is? What purpose does it serve (except to possibly save face
> in light of dissatisfaction with the results of the previous version)?
> Seriously: what /point/ is there in making sure people know the current
> version has a different name than the updated version that is almost ready?
>
I personally do not care what you call it. Call it Blue Patzer for all
I care. I AM explaining why it is that people keep on pointing out that
it was Deep Thought playing, and not Deep Blue. Again, if you had not
asked why people keep on correcting others on this then I would not
have pointed it out yet again. (Incidentally the reason why it
originally came up if I recall is that people were saying that if Deep
Blue had problems with Fritz then it will have more with Kasparov. At
that point it was quite relevant that Deep Blue is substantially
different from Deep Thought.)
> ; Secondly the actual team did not do much crying and
> ; complaining, as I recall they were quite matter-of-fact about it.
>
> Bit it on my wording of that one. My intentions were directed more
> towards the posts I saw that continued to crop up saying these things
> over and over again.. post that were /not/ made by the actual team
> (unless there were some /I/ didn't see).
>
The points that I mentioned were all brought up by the post made by the
leader of the team shortly after the championship...you probably did
not see that post since it was quite a while ago. (Incidentally if you
read news.announce.newusers it tells you to wait for at least a month
before posting to a newsgroup...mainly to make sure that you avoid the
questions and points that have already been dealt with...incidentally
there is a lot of useful advice in that group, ranging from basic
navigational skills to basic netiquitte...)
> ; The machine that was playing the tournament has never been, should
> ; never have been, and by people who know the situation will never be
> ; called Deep Blue.
>
> But it /was/ called Deep Blue. It's name was published as Deep
> Blue. Why are supporters (like yourself) trying so hard to let everyone
> know that it is not Deep Blue? To try and save face? No? Then why?
> They have a /much/ stronger version coming out by early next
> year, and so it will be even better. Why do people have to try so hard
> to convince people (like you're trying to do right now..) that it was
> not /really/ Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? What's the point?
It most definitely was NOT called Deep Blue. At least not by anybody
who knows what they are talking about. There are SOME who have been
confused by the fact that Deep Thought is related to the Deep Blue
which will play Kasparov who have confused the two. But they are NOT
the same.
> Was Deep Blue born from DT's program? Or is it a new program, built
> totally from scratch that bears /no/ similarity to DT? If so, fine,
> claim your new name. But if it's an extensively improved version
> of DT, then as far as I'm concerned, it's still the same program,
> just a /much/ better version -- and changing the name convinces people of
> nothing, although it might make some people feel better..
>
Actually, although it includes a program, Deep Blue is NOT just a
program. It is a specially designed computer with special chips
designed EXPRESSELY for playing chess. (Remember when I said that Deep
Blue had not been *built*? I chose that word carefully!) So even though
its design has strong similarities to DT, it most expressely is a
DIFFERENT computer. Again, this is NOT a new point, and it has come up
several times! (sigh)
The program, opening book, ect will also be changed (hopefully for the
better). But that is not why it gets a different name.
> ; That is just not its name. By contrast Fritz is the
> ; name of the entry that one. When next they meet again it will be an
> ; updated version of Fritz, but it will still be called Fritz. Obviously
> ; both of the entries will be different from last time.
>
> Again, what's the issue about names?? The programs come from the same
> people, and many people know it's an incredibly strong program getting
> better each time..
>
Many people are then mistaken about DT (and DB). It is not just a
program, it is an actual *computer* with one purpose...it has been
designed to play chess.
> ; > See the point?
> ; >
> ; Yes. The point is that you do not know what the computers have been
> ; called all along. DTII is not Deep Blue, and it shows ignorance to call
> ; it that.
>
> Somebody better tell "Inside Chess" -- they are ignorant as well..
> any other ignorant people out there?.. Thank you for expressing that
> so pointedly.. Listen, start /explaining/ your statements rather than
> labeling the people that don't agree with you.. it's more effective and
> if you have a point, you're /much/ more likely to get it across that way..
>
Take a look at Inside Chess. If they actually called it Deep Blue then
I am disappointed in them. My bet is that they had a statement along
the lines of "a prototype for Deep Blue" or something similar, and you
misunderstood them. But the people who work with computer chess such as
Robert Hyatt and Peter Gillgasch have been quite clear...
> Now, why don't you explain /why/ you feel the programs deserve
> different names as if they are two entirely unrelated programs.
> I know you feel that way, now I want to know why. Apparently you
> "know the situation": so, why don't you tell us now. I know Robert
> Hyatt could probably provide an explanation, but I'd really like to
> hear yours..
>
They are substantially different pieces of hardware, running different
programs, which the maker (IBM) has decided to call different names.
(For more on the differences see Peter Gillgasch's article.) Can you
think of any reason why we should now call them the same thing?
> ; It is not a question of "excuses", it is a question of knowing
> ; the names that were properly given to the computers involved.
>
> So then that's what's truly important here? Getting the names right?
>
What is important here is trying to make it clear to you why it is that
people have been trying to make it clear that we are talking about
things with different names, and why DT is not really representative of
what DB can do.
> ; I believe that the IBM team is improving their machine...
>
> Good for them.
>
Take a look at what Peter Gillgasch wrote to see exactly how *much*
they are improving it...
>
> So I'd really like to hear your explanation behind your support for
> the name difference..
>
I gave it.
> As far as I'm concerned, I don't care /what/ it's name is: an older
> version of "it" played in Hong Kong, and now a /much/ stronger version
> is almost ready to play Kasparov. I just want to see what will happen
> (and how it happens).. Why waste so much energy convincing people to
> get the name right .. get it published right and whatever is published
> will be picked up on..
AFAIK it has been published correctly so far...but some people do not
seem to be picking up on the point. They get corrected. Then others
like you see them get corrected and ask, "What is the big detail, why
are they being corrected?" So another round of explanations start...
After the same point comes up 10 or so times and there is still a
steady supply of new people to keep asking the same questions, one
begins to understand why newbies are considered "clueless"...
Ben Tilly
Robert Hyatt
Raymond Helie <he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu> wrote:
>Benjamin J. Tilly <Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>; he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
>;
>; [..]
>; > this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
>; > to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
>; > people about what happened in Hong Kong.
>; >
>
>; They are not "excuses"...they are explanations of what is going on.
>
>hear it over and over again in so many different ways, it begins to
>sound like whining. They /could/ have been explanations, but after
>hearing them 20 times..
>
>; sides, the Fritz team included, believe that the IBM computer was the
>; strongest entry, and it was due to a combination of factors that it
>; lost.
>
>20 different ways .. enough already: state it once and once only,
>lest it become whining.. it's been said enough times already..
>
>; > the results of the World Computer Championship in Hong Kong:
>; >
>; > So /what/ that it was not Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? Who cares?
>; > Whatever version /was/ playing there lost under /those/ tournament
>; > conditions (however bad they were), and if the prototype was such a
>; > poor comparison to one that will be ready in February, then why
>; > the hell was it allowed to play? ie., if you /are/ going to enter
>; > a weaker version, then don't cry and complain if your weaker
>; > version loses. "Well, it wasn't the /real/ version.. <ahem>."
>; > Please.
>; >
>;
>; There is the minor detail that the stronger one has to be BUILT before
>; it can play.
>
>your current version. Why are you so adamant about what the correct
>/name/ is? What purpose does it serve (except to possibly save face
>in light of dissatisfaction with the results of the previous version)?
>Seriously: what /point/ is there in making sure people know the current
>version has a different name than the updated version that is almost ready?
>
>; complaining, as I recall they were quite matter-of-fact about it.
>
>towards the posts I saw that continued to crop up saying these things
>over and over again.. post that were /not/ made by the actual team
>(unless there were some /I/ didn't see).
>
>; never have been, and by people who know the situation will never be
>; called Deep Blue.
>
>Blue. Why are supporters (like yourself) trying so hard to let everyone
>know that it is not Deep Blue? To try and save face? No? Then why?
>They have a /much/ stronger version coming out by early next
>year, and so it will be even better. Why do people have to try so hard
>to convince people (like you're trying to do right now..) that it was
>Was Deep Blue born from DT's program? Or is it a new program, built
>totally from scratch that bears /no/ similarity to DT? If so, fine,
>claim your new name. But if it's an extensively improved version
>of DT, then as far as I'm concerned, it's still the same program,
>just a /much/ better version -- and changing the name convinces people of
>nothing, although it might make some people feel better..
>
It *was not* called deep blue, it was called "deep blue prototype"
which has been well-documented to be deep thought II with some new
search extensions. Same hardware, same speed as before, *not* the
one billion node per second "promised" by Hsu and group. Deep Blue
is the program currently running on the deep thought II hardware,
but running on hardware *significantly* faster. It really is not
hard to figure this out, and that's what several (including myself)
have been "trying" to explain. It seems that even though it has
been repeated "20" times, it has been falling on deaf ears for the
most part.
>; That is just not its name. By contrast Fritz is the
>; name of the entry that one. When next they meet again it will be an
>; updated version of Fritz, but it will still be called Fritz. Obviously
>; both of the entries will be different from last time.
>
>Again, what's the issue about names?? The programs come from the same
>people, and many people know it's an incredibly strong program getting
>better each time..
>
>; > See the point?
>; >
>; Yes. The point is that you do not know what the computers have been
>; called all along. DTII is not Deep Blue, and it shows ignorance to call
>; it that.
>
>Somebody better tell "Inside Chess" -- they are ignorant as well..
>any other ignorant people out there?.. Thank you for expressing that
>so pointedly.. Listen, start /explaining/ your statements rather than
>labeling the people that don't agree with you.. it's more effective and
>if you have a point, you're /much/ more likely to get it across that way..
>
>Now, why don't you explain /why/ you feel the programs deserve
>different names as if they are two entirely unrelated programs.
>I know you feel that way, now I want to know why. Apparently you
>"know the situation": so, why don't you tell us now. I know Robert
>Hyatt could probably provide an explanation, but I'd really like to
>hear yours..
>
The difference between the two "may" be significant. Many are
skeptical, many are hoping so, many are hoping not. In any case,
the difference is roughly 5 million nodes per second vs 1 billion
nodes per second, a factor of roughly 200. What would you expect
of Fritz on a 1mhz pentium? on a 200mhz pentium? That's the
difference in computing power.
>; It is not a question of "excuses", it is a question of knowing
>; the names that were properly given to the computers involved.
>
>So then that's what's truly important here? Getting the names right?
>
>; I believe that the IBM team is improving their machine...
>
>Good for them.
>
>
>So I'd really like to hear your explanation behind your support for
>the name difference..
>
>As far as I'm concerned, I don't care /what/ it's name is: an older
>version of "it" played in Hong Kong, and now a /much/ stronger version
>is almost ready to play Kasparov. I just want to see what will happen
>(and how it happens).. Why waste so much energy convincing people to
>get the name right .. get it published right and whatever is published
>will be picked up on..
>
>
>Ray [he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu]
Peter Gillgasch
|> In article <3tcg8v$1...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
|> Peter Gillgasch <gil...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
[ Some remarks were I praised the performance of Fritz at the 8th WCCC
and pointed out that the Fritz playing there was not the commercially
available version and that the IBM machine "Deep Thought Prototype" is
basically 7 year old technology that is going to be replaced by something
*much* faster snipped. ]
|> Peter,
|>
|> This is not meant to be an attack on you personally, I have just heard
|> this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
|> to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
|> people about what happened in Hong Kong.
I recognize that you didn't want to attack me personally. I want to
take this opportunity that I did *not* want to make any excuses (I
didn't even mention my own program) - I just wanted to point out some
things that many people in r.g.c tend to overlook.
|> So /what/ that it was not Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? Who cares?
|> Whatever version /was/ playing there lost under /those/ tournament
|> conditions (however bad they were), and if the prototype was such a
|> poor comparison to one that will be ready in February, then why
|> the hell was it allowed to play? ie., if you /are/ going to enter
|> a weaker version, then don't cry and complain if your weaker
|> version loses. "Well, it wasn't the /real/ version.. <ahem>."
|> Please.
I cannot recall that anybody from the IBM team cried or complained.
The were not exactly happy but it was my personal impression that
they didn't care too much. I assume that they think of the future
of their project, not the past.
Of course I cannot say "why it was allowed to play". But
(a) The prototype is not bad at all. Anybody claiming something else is
downright, well, er, misinformed (^8 I have no problem with stating
that it *is* the best chess program.
(b) IBM sponsored the event. Why shouldn't they enter their machine?
|> OK, note: It was not Fritz that won against the Deep Blue
|> Prototype. It was the Fritz Prototype. The machine that will
|> surprise the real Deep Blue during their next encounter *is* Fritz.
|>
|> See the point?
Yes. I don't want to attack you personally but it is really stupid,
sorry. You are trying to mimick my statement about the upcoming
Kasparov/Deep Blue event. Many people reading this newsgroup are
obviously not aware what the non-prototype version of Deep Blue is
and they are basing their evaluation of Deep Blue's chances on
the history of the Prototype...
Now, when Fritz *is* about a factor of 10,000 - 5,000 times faster
than the so-called "Fritz Prototype" you mentioned your statement
would make sense. That is the speedup Fritz would need to be as
fast as the Deep Blue that is going to play, if my math is not
lacking here... Did have only one coffee this morning, so don't
rely on this (^8. Frans is good. But not so good.
|> And for those involved in the "fairness in computer chess" debate:
|> some (not all, I know) of the same people who claim that the chess
|> program's opening book is an intrinsic part of the program turn around
|> and say "well, Fritz probably had a /special/ opening book that
|> gave it an advantage". So /what/?!! That's intrinsically part
|> of the program, like you've been arguing. That makes it a better
|> program, in /that/ particular respect. Stop contradicting yourself.
Note that I am not heavily involved in this debate. It is neither
interesting nor fruitful. No one claimed that the opening book of
Fritz was "unfair". Everybody who was in Hong Kong accepts the book
and endgame databases as part of the programs. No one contradicts
himself.
|> If people are not happy with the results in Hong Kong, then do
|> something /constructive/: petition the ICCA to change the format,
|> continue working on your program's weaknesses (which may be the
|> opening book).. move on.. stop wasting your time justifying
|> your displeasure via excuses..
Again, no one tries to justify anything. Regarding the format of
the WCCC... In the meeting before the tourney the teams expressed
their worries about the format. The organizers aggreed that the
format will produce results that are likely to be distorted. The
problem there was simple: Cash.
Each day in Hong Kong costed the ICCA *big bucks*. I can recall a
number that was told us by David Levy. This number was so high
that I won't post it here. There were 24 teams, with an average
of 2 members per team. Most of those teams were partly fincanced
by the ICCA (cost of travel and hotel). Before someone flames around
I want to note that our team didn't take a single cent from the
ICCA. Now add to this some telecommunication costs plus the costs
for all the people involved running the event.
The players consensus was that in the next events we want to have
on some days 2 rounds a day to have at least 8 rounds. I expect
that this will lead to serious trouble for the teams that are
running their programs on mainframes.
|> And if you /are/ happy about the results, stop trying to act like
|> it means something about those that didn't win. It doesn't.
I suppose that goes for all the people who think that a PC based
program is better than any mainframe/special purpose hardware
because the PC programmers are so clever and the big iron guys
are so stupid, correct?
[ some correct observations about the format in Hong Kong snipped,
since it is mainly repeating what you already wrote]
|> Again, this was not an attack on you, Peter. And this is, after
|> all things said, my opinion. Take from it what you want..
I did. No flames attached, I hope...
Raymond Helie
; he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
;
; [..]
; > this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
; > to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
; > people about what happened in Hong Kong.
; >
; They are not "excuses"...they are explanations of what is going on.
They are explanations when they are given once .. when you start to
hear it over and over again in so many different ways, it begins to
sound like whining. They /could/ have been explanations, but after
hearing them 20 times..
; All
; sides, the Fritz team included, believe that the IBM computer was the
; strongest entry, and it was due to a combination of factors that it
; lost.
That's great. I'm talking about people who present that statement
20 different ways .. enough already: state it once and once only,
lest it become whining.. it's been said enough times already..
; > This is addressed to all the people who have made excuses about
; > the results of the World Computer Championship in Hong Kong:
; >
; > So /what/ that it was not Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? Who cares?
; > Whatever version /was/ playing there lost under /those/ tournament
; > conditions (however bad they were), and if the prototype was such a
; > poor comparison to one that will be ready in February, then why
; > the hell was it allowed to play? ie., if you /are/ going to enter
; > a weaker version, then don't cry and complain if your weaker
; > version loses. "Well, it wasn't the /real/ version.. <ahem>."
; > Please.
; >
;
; There is the minor detail that the stronger one has to be BUILT before
; it can play.
Thank you for pointing that out. The point: As far as I'm concerned,
if the stronger one is not operational yet, then your "prototype" /is/
your current version. Why are you so adamant about what the correct
/name/ is? What purpose does it serve (except to possibly save face
in light of dissatisfaction with the results of the previous version)?
Seriously: what /point/ is there in making sure people know the current
version has a different name than the updated version that is almost ready?
; Secondly the actual team did not do much crying and
; complaining, as I recall they were quite matter-of-fact about it.
Bit it on my wording of that one. My intentions were directed more
towards the posts I saw that continued to crop up saying these things
over and over again.. post that were /not/ made by the actual team
(unless there were some /I/ didn't see).
; The machine that was playing the tournament has never been, should
; never have been, and by people who know the situation will never be
; called Deep Blue.
But it /was/ called Deep Blue. It's name was published as Deep
Blue. Why are supporters (like yourself) trying so hard to let everyone
know that it is not Deep Blue? To try and save face? No? Then why?
They have a /much/ stronger version coming out by early next
year, and so it will be even better. Why do people have to try so hard
to convince people (like you're trying to do right now..) that it was
not /really/ Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? What's the point?
Was Deep Blue born from DT's program? Or is it a new program, built
totally from scratch that bears /no/ similarity to DT? If so, fine,
claim your new name. But if it's an extensively improved version
of DT, then as far as I'm concerned, it's still the same program,
just a /much/ better version -- and changing the name convinces people of
nothing, although it might make some people feel better..
; That is just not its name. By contrast Fritz is the
; name of the entry that one. When next they meet again it will be an
; updated version of Fritz, but it will still be called Fritz. Obviously
; both of the entries will be different from last time.
Again, what's the issue about names?? The programs come from the same
people, and many people know it's an incredibly strong program getting
better each time..
; > See the point?
; >
; Yes. The point is that you do not know what the computers have been
; called all along. DTII is not Deep Blue, and it shows ignorance to call
; it that.
Somebody better tell "Inside Chess" -- they are ignorant as well..
any other ignorant people out there?.. Thank you for expressing that
so pointedly.. Listen, start /explaining/ your statements rather than
labeling the people that don't agree with you.. it's more effective and
if you have a point, you're /much/ more likely to get it across that way..
Now, why don't you explain /why/ you feel the programs deserve
different names as if they are two entirely unrelated programs.
I know you feel that way, now I want to know why. Apparently you
"know the situation": so, why don't you tell us now. I know Robert
Hyatt could probably provide an explanation, but I'd really like to
hear yours..
; It is not a question of "excuses", it is a question of knowing
; the names that were properly given to the computers involved.
So then that's what's truly important here? Getting the names right?
Raymond Helie
; he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu (Raymond Helie) writes:
; |> In article <3tcg8v$1...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>,
; |> Peter Gillgasch <gil...@ira.uka.de> wrote:
;
; [ Some remarks were I praised the performance of Fritz at the 8th WCCC
; and pointed out that the Fritz playing there was not the commercially
; available version and that the IBM machine "Deep Thought Prototype" is
; basically 7 year old technology that is going to be replaced by something
; *much* faster snipped. ]
So a /much/ faster version of a program makes the slower one a prototype?
And if the new version is not /much/ faster, then it is merely a new
version of the same old program? Just curious about your definition
(which is, by the way, /your/ definition -- not a fact that everyone
is abiding by, no matter how sensible it may feel to you)..
; |> Peter,
; |>
; |> This is not meant to be an attack on you personally, I have just heard
; |> this sort of thing quite a few times, and finally I just want
; |> to voice my opinion about all the times I hear excuses from so many
; |> people about what happened in Hong Kong.
;
; I recognize that you didn't want to attack me personally. I want to
; take this opportunity that I did *not* want to make any excuses (I
; didn't even mention my own program) - I just wanted to point out some
; things that many people in r.g.c tend to overlook.
;
; |> So /what/ that it was not Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? Who cares?
; |> Whatever version /was/ playing there lost under /those/ tournament
; |> conditions (however bad they were), and if the prototype was such a
; |> poor comparison to one that will be ready in February, then why
; |> the hell was it allowed to play? ie., if you /are/ going to enter
; |> a weaker version, then don't cry and complain if your weaker
; |> version loses. "Well, it wasn't the /real/ version.. <ahem>."
; |> Please.
;
; I cannot recall that anybody from the IBM team cried or complained.
You may be right on that -- I was careless on how my point came across..
; Of course I cannot say "why it was allowed to play". But
; (a) The prototype is not bad at all. Anybody claiming something else is
; downright, well, er, misinformed (^8 I have no problem with stating
; that it *is* the best chess program.
OK.. I don't know if this is in response to anything I said?
; (b) IBM sponsored the event. Why shouldn't they enter their machine?
Yes, fine. But if a new and improved version in the making is about
to be released, don't mention that fact over and over again if the
current one doesn't perform as well as expected (or even if it does). This
directed towards people who have made several posts about this,
not the members of the team itself (or maybe not even you)..
; |> OK, note: It was not Fritz that won against the Deep Blue
; |> Prototype. It was the Fritz Prototype. The machine that will
; |> surprise the real Deep Blue during their next encounter *is* Fritz.
; |>
; |> See the point?
;
; Yes. I don't want to attack you personally but it is really stupid,
; sorry.
You showed incredible restraint.
; You are trying to mimick my statement about the upcoming
; Kasparov/Deep Blue event.
You're right .. and I think it's a sufficiently accurate parallel;
sufficient enough to get my point across.
; Many people reading this newsgroup are
; obviously not aware what the non-prototype version of Deep Blue is
; and they are basing their evaluation of Deep Blue's chances on
; the history of the Prototype...
Then why don't you help the discussion and tell us exactly what the
non-prototype version of Deep Blue is. What makes it so different
that you consider the new version a new program and the old one
a prototype, rather than just /simply/ saying we now have an
incredibly enhanced version of Deep Blue??
; Now, when Fritz *is* about a factor of 10,000 - 5,000 times faster
; than the so-called "Fritz Prototype" you mentioned your statement
; would make sense. That is the speedup Fritz would need to be as
; fast as the Deep Blue that is going to play, if my math is not
; lacking here... Did have only one coffee this morning, so don't
; rely on this (^8. Frans is good. But not so good.
So a speed factor increase of 10,000 - 5,000 times is what qualifies
something as changing from a prototype to a new program, versus just
an enhanced version of the same program? And upholding /this/ definition
as some sort of fact, you then go on to label my parallel as stupid. So
I guess that makes your definition the totally correct one? It sounds like
an /opinion/, not a fact .. and nothing is deemed right or wrong
based on opinions (unless /everyone/ agrees on something; and in
this case, it is hardly obvious that the majority of people would agree
with you).
; |> And for those involved in the "fairness in computer chess" debate:
; |> some (not all, I know) of the same people who claim that the chess
; |> program's opening book is an intrinsic part of the program turn around
; |> and say "well, Fritz probably had a /special/ opening book that
; |> gave it an advantage". So /what/?!! That's intrinsically part
; |> of the program, like you've been arguing. That makes it a better
; |> program, in /that/ particular respect. Stop contradicting yourself.
;
; Note that I am not heavily involved in this debate. It is neither
; interesting nor fruitful. No one claimed that the opening book of
; Fritz was "unfair".
That's not what I've seen.. it has been said that Fritz' opening book
was probably tweaked to take advantage of some opening that Deep Blue
has played before .. implying a certain degree of unfairness..
; Everybody who was in Hong Kong accepts the book
; and endgame databases as part of the programs. No one contradicts
; himself.
Was I talking about everyone in Hong Kong? If you'll reread the post
you're responding to, you'll see that I said this was directed at anyone
who continues making the sort of complaining statements that I keep
hearing. I don't remember limiting myself (or even specifically
/including/) people in Hong Kong.
; |> If people are not happy with the results in Hong Kong, then do
; |> something /constructive/: petition the ICCA to change the format,
; |> continue working on your program's weaknesses (which may be the
; |> opening book).. move on.. stop wasting your time justifying
; |> your displeasure via excuses..
;
; Again, no one tries to justify anything.
I hope you didn't take the previous post as an issue that was
directed at you specifically. If you did, then that is my fault
for not making it clear enough..
; |> And if you /are/ happy about the results, stop trying to act like
; |> it means something about those that didn't win. It doesn't.
;
; I suppose that goes for all the people who think that a PC based
; program is better than any mainframe/special purpose hardware
; because the PC programmers are so clever and the big iron guys
; are so stupid, correct?
Where did /that/ come from?!! Yes, it goes for /any/ program that
wins, and their supporters then making inferences about the losses
of the rest of the programs.. A PC program won, didn't it? And
I still said what I said. As I said before, I could care less
what program is best .. I'm interested in what the best programs
are doing, PC based /or/ mainframe/special purpose hardware..
And as far as what you have just brought up, that is another can of worms..
; |> Again, this was not an attack on you, Peter. And this is, after
; |> all things said, my opinion. Take from it what you want..
;
; I did. No flames attached, I hope...
You tell me.. lighten up on the more intense reactions to what you
don't agree with. If you think something was stupid, just explain
why and get your point across .. names only weaken your argument..
Ray [he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu]
Robert Hyatt
Raymond Helie <he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu> wrote:
>Benjamin J. Tilly <Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>; an endless stream of people who have not followed the thread closely
>; enough, who step in to give their own 2 bits, who people then correct.
>; When people like you stop coming forward asking the same basic
>; questions, then people like me will stop repeating the same basic
>; answers.
>
>specifically, are you implying that I've contributed to repeating?
>
>
>; > ; All
>; > ; sides, the Fritz team included, believe that the IBM computer was the
>; > ; strongest entry, and it was due to a combination of factors that it
>; > ; lost.
>; >
>; > That's great. I'm talking about people who present that statement
>; > 20 different ways .. enough already: state it once and once only,
>; > lest it become whining.. it's been said enough times already..
>; >
>; It would help if you stop indicating that you have not yet got the
>; point.
>
>
>
>; [question about why the stronger version did not play in the tournament
>; deleted]
>; > ;
>; > ; There is the minor detail that the stronger one has to be BUILT before
>; > ; it can play.
>; >
>; > Thank you for pointing that out.
>;
>; You are welcome...but this is HARDLY the FIRST time that somebody has
>; pointed out this detail.
>
>was that as long as it wasn't built yet, then your working version
>is your current version. That's the second time I had to say that;
>had you read carefully the first time..
>
>
>; The points that I mentioned were all brought up by the post made by the
>; leader of the team shortly after the championship...you probably did
>; not see that post since it was quite a while ago.
>;
>; (Incidentally if you
>; read news.announce.newusers it tells you to wait for at least a month
>; before posting to a newsgroup...mainly to make sure that you avoid the
>; questions and points that have already been dealt with...incidentally
>; there is a lot of useful advice in that group, ranging from basic
>; navigational skills to basic netiquitte...)
>
>few obscure articles "quite a while ago" , and now you're jumping
>on that in an attempt to imply that I need to read
>news.announce.newusers? Get a grip. I can see what I'm up
>against here -- need I resort to amateurish comebacks?
>
>
>> ; The machine that was playing the tournament has never been, should
>> ; never have been, and by people who know the situation will never be
>> ; called Deep Blue.
>>
>> But it /was/ called Deep Blue. It's name was published as Deep
>> Blue. Why are supporters (like yourself) trying so hard to let everyone
>> know that it is not Deep Blue? To try and save face? No? Then why?
>> They have a /much/ stronger version coming out by early next
>> year, and so it will be even better. Why do people have to try so hard
>> to convince people (like you're trying to do right now..) that it was
>> not /really/ Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? What's the point?
>
>; It most definitely was NOT called Deep Blue.
>
>this once already. For someone who tries to make a stink about
>me missing a few articles a "long time ago", it's ironic
>you can't even read the current articles surrounding the topic
>you're so "knowledgeable" about.
>
>
>; Actually, although it includes a program, Deep Blue is NOT just a
>; program. It is a specially designed computer with special chips
>; designed EXPRESSELY for playing chess. (Remember when I said that Deep
>; Blue had not been *built*?
>
>should have been more obvious with my sarcasm, had I realized
>you would have barely skimmed over the post before responding)
>
>
>; I chose that word carefully!)
>
>I couldn't tell <sarcasm here>
>
>
>; So even though its design has strong similarities to DT, it most
>; Again, this is NOT a new point, and it has come up
>; several times! (sigh)
>
>here> (sigh)
>
>
>; Many people are then mistaken about DT (and DB). It is not just a
>; program, it is an actual *computer* with one purpose...it has been
>; designed to play chess.
>
>for pointing that out. <sarcasm here, too>
>
>
>; Take a look at Inside Chess. If they actually called it Deep Blue then
>; I am disappointed in them.
>
>that the whole project is nothing but a long line of prototypes.
>Fine. And now, according to you (and others) the Deep Blue
>coming out in February is to be the true Deep Blue, rather than
>another in a long line of prototypes. Fine.
>
>
>; After the same point comes up 10 or so times and there is still a
>; steady supply of new people to keep asking the same questions, one
>; begins to understand why newbies are considered "clueless"...
>
>they are responding to.
>
>
>Ray [he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu]
This discussion has once again entered the world of semantics and left the
world of lucid discussion far behind.
The basic issue here, as *I* see it, is this: News about the "Deep Blue"
project at IBM has been around for two or three years at least. It has
been well-publicized that this machine is targeted to search roughly
one billion nodes per second. To this point, that is *all* that is known
about the machine. So far it's "vaporware."
The "deep blue prototype" has also been around for a couple of years and
has also been "well publicized" as the "software" that will run on the
*new* hardware, running on the old deep thought II hardware. IE, it is
code that is targeted for the new machine with it's dramatic speed
improvement, but running on a machine some 100-200 times slower than that
machine.
For those of us in the computer chess world that follow this closely, the
distinction is *significant*. To call the deep blue prototype chess player
simply "deep blue" is a gross misstatement, because it is *not* deep blue
*yet*. As for how it will play, that's anybody's guess. Knowing what Hsu
and group have been doing with selective extensions, however, it appears to
me that they have made a committment to not try to reach 14-15 plies full-width,
but, rather, use some of the increased speed to follow selected branches of the
tree to much deeper than usual depths. Who knows just what effect doing this
on slower hardware has had. It might just be that deep blue prototype is
much weaker than deep thought II, due to these extensions reducing the depth
enough on the current (relatively slow hardware). In any case it is all
speculation at best, but the name "Deep Blue" does, in fact, carry with it
a promise of significant speed that the "prototype" does *not* have. That's
why everyone is pointing out to everyone else facts that are not always
founded in what's really going on. Hope this clears it up. The word "prototype"
has been the problem, and Hsu really dropped the ball when he came up with this
as "prototype" means something *very* specific to most of us. Namely, a
prototype is something relatively close to the final product, but with pieces
missing that aren't so important. In Hsu's case, *so much* is missing, calling
it a prototype was a mistake, even thought *I* know he was talking about
the prototype "software" and not the prototype "hardware" yet Deep Blue is
(will be) a combination of both. As a result: confusion.
Peter Gillgasch
[ I snip a lot without being ashamed of it ]
|> Again, you didn't read what I wrote before: In "Inside Chess", it
|> is called Deep Blue. So obviously "every official printed matter
|> about the tournament accepts this.." is not true. More wasted time
|> because you didn't read what I said. I can see we're getting
|> nowhere..
1. "Inside Chess" is obviously wrong if it calls that "Deep Blue".
2. "Inside Chess" is no official publication by the Chinese University
of Hong Kong, the ICCA or IBM. It has nothing to do with the tournament.
Fairly obvious who can't read.
|> No, no, no. My fault (thought it was clear): Why was it allowed
|> to play _by the people who wrote the program_ -- not the officials.
I see. Ask them. I am sure that they *love* to answer the questions of
some high caliber intelligence like you. I am even sure that they will
offer you a job in their team! Go for it! This is your chance!
|> Someone asked you via email? I don't remember seeing you responding
|> to a post that asked..
Of course someone asked me via email and I didn't hesitate to post a
reply on several newsgroups! I always post because my opinion is so
incredible important to the world! I never user email!
BTW I never understood what this line in the posts may mean:
References: <WOLF.95J...@doppel.first.gmd.de>
<3tso21$p...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
<3tt4r4$c...@hunk.asel.udel.edu>
<3tu0rr$k...@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
<3u29op$4...@hunk.asel.udel.edu>
I am so clever, why can't I decipher that ?!
|> An excellent description. To the degree that it's accurate, I
|> thank you.
Oh a warm shower in the cold cruel world of usenet. But of course with the
stab in the back following right away...
|> That's about as useful as saying every computer chess program should
|> be called Deep Blue because it plays chess -- bad analogy.
I'd like to express my sincere apologies that my ability to express
myself is so much worse than yours. Since I am spending my nights writing
chess programs my mental capabilities are slightly retarded - especially
since I am not so gifted in making conversation like you are. Well and
it is really hard to practise it since I don't have so many intelligent
friends like you have!
|> Maybe not to the same magnitude as this, but is this is the first time
|> that _significant changes_ were made to the program?
No. The first signifigant change was the implementation of "ponder searches".
After that Hsu felt that the program needs a new name and called it
"DeepThoughtOnYourTime - Prototype". The guy *always* changes the name
of the machine after major breakthroughs, right?
|> Yes, that was a good explanation. Hopefully the publications will
|> start getting it right so I don't have to wonder..
Slight correction: "so I don't have to waste bandwidth..."
|> Come on, Peter, why don't you read /carefully/ so you understand what
|> was said before you respond with something based on what you thought
|> I said. Read it again above: like /I/ said, so /what/ about a special
|> opening book that gave Fritz an advantage (if that was even the case).
|> This is getting ridiculous that I have to listen to responses by you
|> before you attempt to read what I said. If you're not going to read a
|> post before you respond, please don't bother to respond..
It will *never* happen again your Lordship! I promise!
|> ; You did write a followup on an article of mine. If you want to yell at
|> ; all people that "complain" than use a new topic. Otherwise I react
|> ; on what you wrote. Simple.
|>
|> Apparently not so simple for you. In the /very first paragraph/ of
|> my post, I said it was directed at all the people who continue to
|> complain. If you're going to get confused based on the topic (do
|> you even /read/ the contents?), then give up posting.. you're
|> cluttering up the group..
Oh. Shit. Didn't know that. Err. What can I say? Hum. Probably you
are right. Damned. I *am* cluttering up the group. Yes. Right now.
|> ; |> I hope you didn't take the previous post as an issue that was
|> ; |> directed at you specifically. If you did, then that is my fault
|> ; |> for not making it clear enough..
|> ;
|> ; No I didn't.
|>
|> Yes you did! Brother! And you said so yourself above: "If you want
^^^^^^^
|> to yell at all people that complain, then use a new topic. Otherwise
|> I react on what you wrote" You /don't/ really read these posts,
|> do you?
Never. Frankly, I can't read. I can't even write or think. Not even
simple arithmetic.
But if I am your brother, that should explain everything, shouldn't it?
|> ; But maybe we have to stay focused. I can only speak for
|> ; myself,
|>
|> You're a picture of concentration..
What? Who?
|> ; so if you want to discussion something than don't complain
|> ; about "anyone that...". This won't help us.
|>
|> Sure it does: it directs the post at "anyone that..." that way the
|> right people know who I'm talking about. You'd realize it if
|> you'd actually read the post. Oh, I get it. "This won't help
|> us": you mean those of "us" (yourself included) who don't actually
|> read the body of the text, only the header? Got it..
Now, let's see. If I say that I will __never__ again waste some
time posting detailed answers to the questions raised for the
n-th time (or to be precise for the (n + 1)-th time) by some
weirdo then "the right people know who I'm talking about" ?
|> Listen, I can see this is getting nowhere, so after you misconstrue
|> most of what I've just written because you didn't really read it,
|> do us all a favor and don't respond. I'm not going to waste
|> time responding to such /poorly/ thought-out posts..
<Plonk> And BTW I have *proof* that you have no plan:
> finger he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu
[hunk.asel.udel.edu]
Login name: helie In real life: Raymond Helie
Directory: /home/helie Shell: /bin/tcsh
Last login Thu Jul 13 02:15 on ttyp2 from chapel-cs5.udel.
Unread mail since Thu Jul 13 12:00:01 1995
No Plan.
You are not anonymous here. Kid, if you exhibit in real life the
same behaviour then I'd say your parents should find a better
place for you...
Raymond Helie
; The name made the prototype the "Prototype". Simple. If the creators
; of the machine call the machine "Deep Blue Prototype" and if every
; offical printed matter about the tournament accepts this then everybody
; should respect this.
Again, you didn't read what I wrote before: In "Inside Chess", it
is called Deep Blue. So obviously "every official printed matter
about the tournament accepts this.." is not true. More wasted time
because you didn't read what I said. I can see we're getting
nowhere..
; |> OK.. I don't know if this is in response to anything I said?
;
; This was in response to your Q why the program was "allowed to play".
; If a program is not allowed to play then this implies that the ICCA
; decided that it is not strong enough for such an event. This is certainly
; not the case here (^8. I don't want to accuse you for having said this.
; I just wanted to answer your question.
No, no, no. My fault (thought it was clear): Why was it allowed
to play _by the people who wrote the program_ -- not the officials.
; Ok, I accept this as not directed to towards me. My question is: Someone
; asked for the final standings of the event. I posted them. The guy who
; asked was unsure whether some article in some paper was true. I simply
; that that it is true but told him that the paper (or his post) didn't
; get the name of Deep Blue Prototype right. Just for the sake of completenss
; I added some info about the version of Fritz that was used there.
Someone asked you via email? I don't remember seeing you responding
to a post that asked..
; |> Then why don't you help the discussion and tell us exactly what the
; |> non-prototype version of Deep Blue is. What makes it so different
; |> that you consider the new version a new program and the old one
; |> a prototype, rather than just /simply/ saying we now have an
; |> incredibly enhanced version of Deep Blue??
;
; Ok, I'll explain that. Deep Blue Prototype is a combination of a
[great explanation of DB Prototype and DB deleted]
; The Deep Blue team plans to use 256, 512 or even 1024
; of those single chip chess machines in parallel.
An excellent description. To the degree that it's accurate, I
thank you.
; Now if this does not
; deserve a different name, than the Ferrari F40 should be called Ford Model
; T, because it has four wheels and is useful for transportation.
That's about as useful as saying every computer chess program should
be called Deep Blue because it plays chess -- bad analogy.
Maybe not to the same magnitude as this, but is this is the first time
that _significant changes_ were made to the program?
; I hope that the above paragraph I wrote to explain the difference cleared
; that up. I hope it is obvious now. It is a completely different piece of
; hardware/software.
Yes, that was a good explanation. Hopefully the publications will
start getting it right so I don't have to wonder..
; |> ; Ray wrote:
; |> ; |> And for those involved in the "fairness in computer chess" debate:
; |> ; |> some (not all, I know) of the same people who claim that the chess
; |> ; |> program's opening book is an intrinsic part of the program turn around
; |> ; |> and say "well, Fritz probably had a /special/ opening book that
; |> ; |> gave it an advantage". So /what/?!! That's intrinsically part
; |> ; |> of the program, like you've been arguing. That makes it a better
; |> ; |> program, in /that/ particular respect. Stop contradicting yourself.
; |> ;
; |> ; Note that I am not heavily involved in this debate. It is neither
; |> ; interesting nor fruitful. No one claimed that the opening book of
; |> ; Fritz was "unfair".
; |>
; Ray wrote:
; |> That's not what I've seen.. it has been said that Fritz' opening book
; |> was probably tweaked to take advantage of some opening that Deep Blue
; |> has played before .. implying a certain degree of unfairness..
;
; So what? This is usual business. It does not imply any unfairness. I
; think we both aggree on that. Neither a chess player nor a programmer
; would call this unfair.
Come on, Peter, why don't you read /carefully/ so you understand what
was said before you respond with something based on what you thought
I said. Read it again above: like /I/ said, so /what/ about a special
opening book that gave Fritz an advantage (if that was even the case).
This is getting ridiculous that I have to listen to responses by you
before you attempt to read what I said. If you're not going to read a
post before you respond, please don't bother to respond..
And yes, I did see someone imply several times that Fritz
might have had a special opening book prepared to play DB ..
what's the point of saying this if not to imply that it may
be slightly unfair (for /whatever/ reason).
; |> ; Everybody who was in Hong Kong accepts the book
; |> ; and endgame databases as part of the programs. No one contradicts
; |> ; himself.
; |>
; |> Was I talking about everyone in Hong Kong? If you'll reread the post
; |> you're responding to, you'll see that I said this was directed at anyone
; |> who continues making the sort of complaining statements that I keep
; |> hearing. I don't remember limiting myself (or even specifically
; |> /including/) people in Hong Kong.
;
; You did write a followup on an article of mine. If you want to yell at
; all people that "complain" than use a new topic. Otherwise I react
; on what you wrote. Simple.
Apparently not so simple for you. In the /very first paragraph/ of
my post, I said it was directed at all the people who continue to
complain. If you're going to get confused based on the topic (do
you even /read/ the contents?), then give up posting.. you're
cluttering up the group..
; |> I hope you didn't take the previous post as an issue that was
; |> directed at you specifically. If you did, then that is my fault
; |> for not making it clear enough..
;
; No I didn't.
Yes you did! Brother! And you said so yourself above: "If you want
to yell at all people that complain, then use a new topic. Otherwise
I react on what you wrote" You /don't/ really read these posts,
do you?
; But maybe we have to stay focused. I can only speak for
; myself,
You're a picture of concentration..
; so if you want to discussion something than don't complain
; about "anyone that...". This won't help us.
Sure it does: it directs the post at "anyone that..." that way the
right people know who I'm talking about. You'd realize it if
you'd actually read the post. Oh, I get it. "This won't help
us": you mean those of "us" (yourself included) who don't actually
read the body of the text, only the header? Got it..
Listen, I can see this is getting nowhere, so after you misconstrue
most of what I've just written because you didn't really read it,
do us all a favor and don't respond. I'm not going to waste
time responding to such /poorly/ thought-out posts..
Ray [he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu]
Raymond Helie
; The reason why they come up again and again is that there seems to be
; an endless stream of people who have not followed the thread closely
; enough, who step in to give their own 2 bits, who people then correct.
; When people like you stop coming forward asking the same basic
; questions, then people like me will stop repeating the same basic
; answers.
To make sure we're talking about the same thing: what basic questions,
specifically, are you implying that I've contributed to repeating?
; > ; All
; > ; sides, the Fritz team included, believe that the IBM computer was the
; > ; strongest entry, and it was due to a combination of factors that it
; > ; lost.
; >
; > That's great. I'm talking about people who present that statement
; > 20 different ways .. enough already: state it once and once only,
; > lest it become whining.. it's been said enough times already..
; >
; It would help if you stop indicating that you have not yet got the
; point.
Where did I say just then that I do not yet have the point?
; [question about why the stronger version did not play in the tournament
; deleted]
; > ;
; > ; There is the minor detail that the stronger one has to be BUILT before
; > ; it can play.
; >
; > Thank you for pointing that out.
;
; You are welcome...but this is HARDLY the FIRST time that somebody has
; pointed out this detail.
I was being sarcastic -- of /course/ it is being *built*. My *point*
was that as long as it wasn't built yet, then your working version
is your current version. That's the second time I had to say that;
had you read carefully the first time..
; The points that I mentioned were all brought up by the post made by the
; leader of the team shortly after the championship...you probably did
; not see that post since it was quite a while ago.
;
; (Incidentally if you
; read news.announce.newusers it tells you to wait for at least a month
; before posting to a newsgroup...mainly to make sure that you avoid the
; questions and points that have already been dealt with...incidentally
; there is a lot of useful advice in that group, ranging from basic
; navigational skills to basic netiquitte...)
I've been reading this newsgroup for years, I miss a
few obscure articles "quite a while ago" , and now you're jumping
on that in an attempt to imply that I need to read
news.announce.newusers? Get a grip. I can see what I'm up
against here -- need I resort to amateurish comebacks?
> ; The machine that was playing the tournament has never been, should
> ; never have been, and by people who know the situation will never be
> ; called Deep Blue.
>
> But it /was/ called Deep Blue. It's name was published as Deep
> Blue. Why are supporters (like yourself) trying so hard to let everyone
> know that it is not Deep Blue? To try and save face? No? Then why?
> They have a /much/ stronger version coming out by early next
> year, and so it will be even better. Why do people have to try so hard
> to convince people (like you're trying to do right now..) that it was
> not /really/ Deep Blue, but rather a prototype? What's the point?
; It most definitely was NOT called Deep Blue.
OK, I'll say it again: "Inside Chess" called it Deep Blue. I said
this once already. For someone who tries to make a stink about
me missing a few articles a "long time ago", it's ironic
you can't even read the current articles surrounding the topic
you're so "knowledgeable" about.
; Actually, although it includes a program, Deep Blue is NOT just a
; program. It is a specially designed computer with special chips
; designed EXPRESSELY for playing chess. (Remember when I said that Deep
; Blue had not been *built*?
Yes -- thank you for pointing out what I already knew.. (guess I
should have been more obvious with my sarcasm, had I realized
you would have barely skimmed over the post before responding)
; I chose that word carefully!)
I couldn't tell <sarcasm here>
; So even though its design has strong similarities to DT, it most
; expressely is a DIFFERENT computer.
; Again, this is NOT a new point, and it has come up
; several times! (sigh)
Has it come up several times?! Gee -- I didn't know. <sarcasm
here> (sigh)
; Many people are then mistaken about DT (and DB). It is not just a
; program, it is an actual *computer* with one purpose...it has been
; designed to play chess.
I thought it was built to run Windows applications. Thank you
for pointing that out. <sarcasm here, too>
; Take a look at Inside Chess. If they actually called it Deep Blue then
; I am disappointed in them.
They specifically called it "the latest prototype.." indicating
that the whole project is nothing but a long line of prototypes.
Fine. And now, according to you (and others) the Deep Blue
coming out in February is to be the true Deep Blue, rather than
another in a long line of prototypes. Fine.
; After the same point comes up 10 or so times and there is still a
; steady supply of new people to keep asking the same questions, one
; begins to understand why newbies are considered "clueless"...
Truly "clueless" are those that don't even read the very article
Raymond Helie
; In article <3u29op$4...@hunk.asel.udel.edu>,
If you're going to be condescending towards someone about many things
you've gotten wrong (because you didn't read their post carefully enough),
you should expect a less than rosy response to your insulting remarks.
If you can't handle someone pointing out your mistakes (which is
what it looks like from your above reaction), then keep that in mind
next time you are thinking about posting.
I'm sorry that I couldn't hold back from using sarcasm in my previous
post, but it is difficult to take //flippant remarks// from
someone who is using innacurate information about what you said.
Just be more careful when you respond -- make sure your information
is correct to the best of your abilities (eg., reread the original
article again to verify yourself that what you're assuming in your
response is accurate, especially if you're going to include scoffing
remarks alongside those assumptions).
you wrote:
; ray wrote:
; |> An excellent description. To the degree that it's accurate, I
; |> thank you.
;
; Oh a warm shower in the cold cruel world of usenet. But of course with the
; stab in the back following right away...
You gave a great description and I thanked you for it. The point
was lost in your anger. There's no backstabbing, only a hopeful
sharing of opinions and information...
Good luck.
Ray [he...@hunk.asel.udel.edu]