Deep Blue Insane search!

[MysticVegeta]

Holy sh!t!! Deep Blue (the computer who beat Kasparov, 3.5-2.5) has an insane search depth, no wonder it won!! It searchs 200,000,000 chess positions per second! Thats Insane. Its a search depth of 6 in beginning game, and 10-20 in middle/end game.

I found it to be quite exciting. Its predicted ELO rating is 3400! Kasparov = 2900. Although I dont think a perfect machine with infinity ELO could be made because there are 10^134 chess positions possible compared to universe which is only 10^126 nanoseconds old. Although, maybe Nanotech has a solution to make a perfect chess machine. I came across one of these article before, I will post the link if I find it.

What do you guys think about this? Isnt this crazy?

[Dan]

I think it is prity cool as well but i bet some day we will see ones with total deepth that will perdicted all posable moves. It is prity intresting to me since i just fished a compsci class that talked about game trees and this kind of things. It is not all about computer power ether tho, the big trick is finding what parts of the game tree you no longer need and do not need to sreach witch drastickly cuts down on the cpu time.

[Andy]

i love how the word nanotechnology gets thrown around everywhere.. you guys do realize that 70% of nanotech is really about the chemical and biomedical right? nanotech at the current stage is going no where near super computing.. and it wont for a long time

[Dan]

Andy wrote:

i love how the word nanotechnology gets thrown around everywhere.. you guys do realize that 70% of nanotech is really about the chemical and biomedical right? nanotech at the current stage is going no where near super computing.. and it wont for a long time

I did not mention nanotechnology in my post , but i was thinking more of the apications of quotom computing and other lines of resarch that whould vastatly improve cpu power. Tho nanotechnology may not be going close to it now, if it is posable then it whould have an application for supercomputing at some time. You have to rember that computers in the stage we know them have only been around for 50 or 60 years so it is not unreasnable to dream of such things since they maybe posiable in our lifetime.

[Hikaru79]

I have a copy of the documentary "Game Over: Kasparov versus the Machine", which is a very interesting look at the construction of Deep Blue, and especially about the series against Kasparov. In fact, its practically narrated by Kasparov. He's in it everywhere. It talks about a lot of things, including the controversy surrounding the second game of the match (long story short, most chess players believe Deep Blue cheated).

I can send a copy if anyone would like. It's really great, trust me.

[Martin]

How would Deep Blue cheat?

[Hikaru79]

Martin wrote:

How would Deep Blue cheat?

There's a particular move in Game 2 that virtually every Chess grandmaster agrees could not have been made by a computer, and was completely out of the league of its previous play. They figured a team of GM's (which IBM has admitted contributed heavily to book play of Deep Blue) "intervened" in that point because it was clear that the computer would have made a mistake in that situation.

It seems rather iffy, but the suspicious part is that, when confronted with these accusations, IBM simply REFUSED, tooth and nail, to show anyone the computer's logs (decision trees, etc). This was only supposed to be a 'friendly' match, so this sudden defensiveness is rather ... strange. Anyway, watch the documentary and you can make up your own mind

[md]

Then Deep Blue didn't cheat, it's controllers did.

That just because there are 10^134 chess positions possible has nothing to do with the universe being only 10^126 nanoseconds old. Computers are getting faster and faster, already modern desktop processors are aproaching 4 instructions per nanosecond. Supercomuters are far beyond this. I can see a modern super computer being able to solve the chess game tree in a few years.

Oh, and assuming the universe is 15 billion years old, that's only 4.7335389x 10^26 nano seconds. Even 25 billion years is only 7.88923149×10^26 nanoseconds. 10^126 nanoseconds is 3.16887646 × 10^109 years, which is a hell of a lot longer then any of the reasonable guesses as to the age of the universe.

[Amailer]

I watched a documentary on this...
Pretty interesting actually- it sorta portrayed the IBM guys as Evil Microsoft people, or just evil people.

What Hikaru79 said- there was one move, second round was it? Either way, that move wasn't `computer like`, it didn't go after the kill- rather it made a strategic move (sacrifice I think), so Kasparov got suspicious, I think he went a little crazy too.

[Hikaru79]

Cornflake wrote:

Then Deep Blue didn't cheat, it's controllers did.

When I say "Deep Blue", I'm not reffering to just the hardware, but rather the team behind it as well. They would be the cheaters in that situation.

Amailer wrote:

What Hikaru79 said- there was one move, second round was it? Either way, that move wasn't `computer like`, it didn't go after the kill- rather it made a strategic move (sacrifice I think), so Kasparov got suspicious, I think he went a little crazy too.

Yeah, that one move in game 2 was what triggered the suspicion -- it was IBM's *reaction* to that suspicion (extreme hostility and secrecy and defensiveness) that really got a lot of people wondering.

[codemage]

DB wouldn't have to computer all possible positions to be a perfect chess player. Some positions (and therefore any resulting positions in the decision tree) are so sub-optimal that they don't need to be computed.

Brainless example: even though there are 20 possible opening moves, most of these are not optimal to play.

[MysticVegeta]

Hikaru, you have the documentary in what? Video or book?

[Hikaru79]

MysticVegeta wrote:

Hikaru, you have the documentary in what? Video or book?

It's a video. If there's a book out there, I'd be interested to hear about it.

[MihaiG]

yes
a lot of contreversy is still evident trhough many chess servers



but most programs now are just as power full as DB, such as Fritz 9 and Deep Fritz 8 (multi-proccesor ver.) an new more power full engine made and tested against british gm michael adams named Hydra beat him....

[MysticVegeta]

Hikaru79 wrote:

MysticVegeta wrote:

Hikaru, you have the documentary in what? Video or book?

It's a video. If there's a book out there, I'd be interested to hear about it.

dam I would like to watch it, where did you buy it?
ahem, cough, Can you copy and send it to me. LOL. [/idiotic question]

El commandmente: Are you the one who Cervantes hates?