Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 01:26:50 10/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2002 at 14:15:10, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On October 09, 2002 at 07:21:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>Please read http://sjeng.org/ftp/deepblue.pdf, written by the DB team, >>which directly contradicts the 12(8) = 12+8 hypothesis. > >Could you please tell me where it contradicts this? I see "A three minute >search on Deep Blue would reach a full-width depth of 12.2 on average." That >is not contradictory, as they appear to commonly refer to the full-width depth >as only the number searched by software. > >There are a couple tables that you could be referring to, but they can't >explain what 12(8) really means, if it is not software(hardware) depth. And >how can we explain searches like 4(5) if it works differently? I'm referring to the tables on page 13 and 14, that list their nominal depth and the corresponding nominal software depth. The text on page 13 also states: 'For a given iteration i, the software is assigned i-4, ...' and especially 'When hardware search extensions and quiescence search are taken into account, we typically see searches from 6 to 16 ply.' Considering that the majority of positions does get an extensions or ends up in qsearch, this makes it impossible that they were going 16 ply nominally, since then they would average far higher than that. The number makes perfect sense for 12-13 ply nominal searches, though. -- GCP
This page took 0 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.