Deeper Blue Power - When Will PC's Match it?

[M ANSARI]

In one hundred years people will look back and wonder what the machine to first beat a human chess world champion looked like. It is a shame that such a machine would not be available to future generations to marvel at. I for one think of it as a marvel of human technology that reached a milestone in human achievement. DB for its time was an awesome machine that totally psyched out no less that the strongest chess player that humans have ever produced. By that time your kids kids kids will be using mobile phones that would be running in excess of 1000 MN's and also wondering how their mobile would do against DB of that day.

As for an overclocked Quadcore ... you don't need $5000 ... I am sure you can configure everything for less than $700.

[Anil]

In one hundred years people will look back and wonder what the machine to first beat a human chess world champion looked like. It is a shame that such a machine would not be available to future generations to marvel at. I for one think of it as a marvel of human technology that reached a milestone in human achievement. DB for its time was an awesome machine that totally psyched out no less that the strongest chess player that humans have ever produced. By that time your kids kids kids will be using mobile phones that would be running in excess of 1000 MN's and also wondering how their mobile would do against DB of that day.

Then will come a new question: Who will be the first human to defeat the world chess champion program?!

Will humans ever evolve enough to dominate computers at chess? Or, is evolution taking longer than technology growth?

[swami]

Will humans ever evolve enough to dominate computers at chess? Or, is evolution taking longer than technology growth?

I don't think so, 2850 seems to be the max for humans through out the history, they still make silly blunders that computers easily take advantage of. But If you are talking about centaur matches or correspondence, then I guess there's a bit of a chance.

[bob]

As I recall DB was chugging along at 200,000,000 nodes per second

Most of them garbage. Rybka showed that it's more important to look at the right nodes than to look at as much nodes as possible (Even though you have to multiply Rybka's nodes by about 17 to get a more reliable figure.)

Take out all the evaluation from some program and the node count will for sure skyrocket, but the program with evaluation will also for sure beat it badly.

You do realize that Rybka is just a fast searcher that hides the true NPS, right? It is not a "super smart" program at all...

[bob]

I would think that a dual socket 8 core per CPU Nehalem based (total 16 cores) could reach the 200 M node count. As for DB strength chesswise ... an overclocked Quadcore running Rybka 3 would probably spank it badly. It is too bad that the system was dismantled ... what were IBM thinking. This would have been a great piece to put in a museum or even test the abilities of it compared to new hardware and software. I cannot for the life of me understand why the system was dismantled and allowed to "evaporate" into thin air.

Not enough hardware. an 8-way 8 cores per chip box might have a chance to reach 200M, but even that is very iffy... You'd need over 10M nodes per second on one core to reach 200M on 16. 10M is a challenge today...

[Graham Banks]

As I recall DB was chugging along at 200,000,000 nodes per second

Most of them garbage. Rybka showed that it's more important to look at the right nodes than to look at as much nodes as possible (Even though you have to multiply Rybka's nodes by about 17 to get a more reliable figure.)

Take out all the evaluation from some program and the node count will for sure skyrocket, but the program with evaluation will also for sure beat it badly.

You do realize that Rybka is just a fast searcher that hides the true NPS, right? It is not a "super smart" program at all...

Smart enough to cream everything else at present though!
And if Rybka isn't that smart, what does that imply about the others?

[Terry McCracken]

As I recall DB was chugging along at 200,000,000 nodes per second

Most of them garbage. Rybka showed that it's more important to look at the right nodes than to look at as much nodes as possible (Even though you have to multiply Rybka's nodes by about 17 to get a more reliable figure.)

Take out all the evaluation from some program and the node count will for sure skyrocket, but the program with evaluation will also for sure beat it badly.

You do realize that Rybka is just a fast searcher that hides the true NPS, right? It is not a "super smart" program at all...

Smart enough to cream everything else at present though!
And if Rybka isn't that smart, what does that imply about the others?

That smart programs are too slow to find all the tactics.

[swami]

As I recall DB was chugging along at 200,000,000 nodes per second

Most of them garbage. Rybka showed that it's more important to look at the right nodes than to look at as much nodes as possible (Even though you have to multiply Rybka's nodes by about 17 to get a more reliable figure.)

Take out all the evaluation from some program and the node count will for sure skyrocket, but the program with evaluation will also for sure beat it badly.

You do realize that Rybka is just a fast searcher that hides the true NPS, right? It is not a "super smart" program at all...

Smart enough to cream everything else at present though!
And if Rybka isn't that smart, what does that imply about the others?

That smart programs are too slow to find all the tactics.

If you want a pretty good tactics solver, try the engine called Bright 0.3a, it's available for free download, best one in tactics, Imo.

[Uri Blass]

As I recall DB was chugging along at 200,000,000 nodes per second

Most of them garbage. Rybka showed that it's more important to look at the right nodes than to look at as much nodes as possible (Even though you have to multiply Rybka's nodes by about 17 to get a more reliable figure.)

Take out all the evaluation from some program and the node count will for sure skyrocket, but the program with evaluation will also for sure beat it badly.

You do realize that Rybka is just a fast searcher that hides the true NPS, right? It is not a "super smart" program at all...

I disagree.

It is clearly also a "super smart" program.

Rybka may search more nodes per second than other programs but this is certainly not the only explaination for rybka's superiority.

The poster also explained that he does not trust rybka's node count
but even if you use realistic number for rybka it is clear that rybka beat other program with equal nodes per second.

Rybka may be 2 times faster or 3 times faster than other programs in nodes per second but certainly not more than it.

It can explain maybe 100 elo difference but the difference between rybka and second best program is clearly more than 100 elo.

Uri

[Rolf]

In one hundred years people will look back and wonder what the machine to first beat a human chess world champion looked like. It is a shame that such a machine would not be available to future generations to marvel at. I for one think of it as a marvel of human technology that reached a milestone in human achievement. DB for its time was an awesome machine that totally psyched out no less that the strongest chess player that humans have ever produced.

This is always the same mistake Hyatt introduced into the debate. A machine cant do anything to the human player. It's the packet of both. The unfriendly operators who communicated with the humn on behalf (???) of the machine - at least here you must realise that it's all the psychology of the human operators who did it against Kasparov at the time. The machine has no evil intentions at all. It doesnt even know that it exists. It's all a big cheat, you know... It's always about psyching out or say brainwashing or hypnotizing a human being. A little GM like Milov for the first time in history showed what a human GM could really do if he applies classical human efforts. But nobody else did that before.

Insofar GM Milov destroyed a decades long myth, that began with Keres against Schneider computer or such. The brainwashing was clear. A Soviet player. One of the best known in the West. Plays against a machine. Ok, and wins.

Look, if they had opposed him to a coffee automat or a washing maching Joe Smith would have said, what an idiotic passtime. And he would have been right on. In short it makes no sense.

Chess is about human against human, with flesh and blood. And it's not about the imagination of chess by a coffee automat. I mean, get real, give me break! In the end freaks could also claim that sex is only in your mind and you just wet your pants like a pubertarian boy. Nobody sane and human would say that this is sex.