Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:24:07 01/31/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 15:19:38, Ed Schröder wrote: > > >Okay 9 plies it is, it does not matter. > >Here is a snip from the "IEEE MICRO" journal from 1999. It says 4 plies in the >hardware AS PART of the iteration, thus not ADD TO the iteration. The text is >below. > >Reading the June 2001 article I seriously doubt DB has shared memory for its >hash table although it's not entirely clear to me. If true that is about the >biggest search killer there you can imagine which makes a 16-18 ply (brute >force) search claim even more ridiculous. Text below. DB definitely did _not_ have shared memory. The SP2 has no shared memory, it is a very fast message-passing system. The 4 plies makes no sense to me in any context, as Deep Thought searched 4-5 plies in hardware, while deep blue searched 5-7 according to Hsu. This depth is pretty-well fixed by the speed of the SP2. The deeper the hardware goes, the slower a search goes and the host software ends up waiting on the chess hardware. If the chess hardware searches too shallowly, say 4 plies, then the host software can't keep up. For a given position/depth, there is a very precise "hardware depth" that optimizes performance... All explained by Hsu several times of course... > >>Did you see the email from the DB team? Is there any misunderstanding that? > >Please post. > >Ed > I did, twice, in response to Vincent...
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.