The system derived its playing strength mainly out of brute force computing power. Deep Blue won the deciding game six after Kasparov made a mistake in the opening, becoming the first computer system to defeat a reigning world champion in a match under standard chess tournament time controls. The match concluded on February 17, 1996.ĭeep Blue was then heavily upgraded (unofficially nicknamed "Deeper Blue") and played Kasparov again in May 1997, winning the six-game rematch 3½–2½, ending on May 11. However, Kasparov won three and drew two of the following five games, beating Deep Blue by a score of 4–2 (wins count 1 point, draws count ½ point). On February 10, 1996, Deep Blue became the first machine to win a chess game against a reigning world champion (Garry Kasparov) under regular time controls. In the end of the championship Deep Blue prototype was tied for second place with the computer program Junior while Junior was running on a personal computer. In round 5 Deep Blue prototype had the white pieces and lost to the computer program Fritz in 39 moves while Fritz was running on a personal computer. Deep Blue prototype played the computer program Wchess to a draw while Wchess was running on a personal computer. In 1995 "Deep Blue prototype" (actually Deep Thought II, renamed for PR reasons) played in the 8th World Computer Chess Championship. After a scaled down version of Deep Blue, Deep Blue Jr., played Grandmaster Joel Benjamin, Hsu and Campbell decided that Benjamin was the expert they were looking for to develop Deep Blue's opening book, and Benjamin was signed by IBM Research to assist with the preparations for Deep Blue's matches against Garry Kasparov. The team was managed first by Randy Moulic, followed by Chung-Jen (C J) Tan.Īfter Deep Thought's 1989 match against Kasparov, IBM held a contest to rename the chess machine and it became "Deep Blue", a play on IBM's nickname, Big Blue. Jerry Brody, a long-time employee of IBM Research, was recruited for the team in 1990. Anantharaman subsequently left IBM for Wall Street and Arthur Joseph Hoane joined the team to perform programming tasks. Hsu and Campbell joined IBM in autumn 1989, with Anantharaman following later. After their graduation from Carnegie Mellon, Hsu, Thomas Anantharaman, and Murray Campbell from the Deep Thought team were hired by IBM Research to continue their quest to build a chess machine that could defeat the world champion. The project was started as "ChipTest" at Carnegie Mellon University by Feng-hsiung Hsu, followed by its successor, Deep Thought. Origins at Carnegie Mellon and move to IBM Research Kasparov had beaten a previous version of Deep Blue in 1996. Kasparov accused IBM of cheating and demanded a rematch, but IBM refused and dismantled Deep Blue. On May 11, 1997, the machine won a six-game match by two wins to one with three draws against world champion Garry Kasparov. We have efficient 64 bits operations.Deep Blue was a chess-playing computer developed by IBM. The algorithms was hardware specific (e.g.Deep Blue pruned less than modern engines.Deep Blue had very basic move ordering ( by Alvaro Cardoso supports my argument).If Stockfish did that, you wouldn't be able to use the engine on an iPhone. Deep Blue was running evaluation on hardware, make no sense in 2018.Deep Blue used MPI for parallel search.Deep Blue didn't use late move pruning (I failed to see in the paper).I'm very confident all modern engines use it. Deep Blue didn't have something known as null move pruning.IBM had 32GB hash table, we can do better than that in 2018.Deep Blue was running on a dedicated machine.Deep Blue didn't focus on deep search as much as modern engines like Stockfish ( (chess_computer)#Aftermath supports my argument).2018, nobody uses human grandmaster games for tuning.Please note I was too young for the project, so my understanding might not be 100% correct.ĭeep Blue had a paper. ![]() There was a somewhat related discussion on Rybka:ĭeep Blue is out-dated, it was made before this century. It's not always possible to compare engines by number of moves searched per seconds. How it's done is implementation dependent. There's no universe definition on how an engine calculates number of moves per second. it was unclear how exactly IBM derived the number. IBM claimed the machine could search for 200 million moves per second, while Stockfish in the recent AlphaZero match could "only" search for 80 million per seconds on a modern multi-core machines.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |