Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:33:52 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 23:00:49, blass uri wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 22:27:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 21, 2000 at 19:16:41, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2000 at 15:29:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>If you don't mind I only answer those points not earlier discussed >>>(enough) to avoid ending up in endless circles. >>> >>> >>>>>2) DB is no brute force program (as you always have claimed). Quote >>>>>from the IBM site: >>>>> >>>>> "Instead of attempting to conduct an exhaustive "brute force" >>>>> search into every possible position, Deep Blue selectively >>>>> chooses distinct paths to follow, eliminating irrelevant searches >>>>> in the process." >>>>> >>>>>I always said this after I had seen the log-files. It beats me how you >>>>>always have claimed the opposite on such a crucial matter presenting >>>>>yourself as the spokesman of Hsu even saying things on behalf of Hsu >>>>>and now being wrong on this crucial matter? >>>> >>>>Sorry, but you are wrong and are interpreting that wrong. DB uses _no_ >>>>forward pruning of any kind, this _direct_ from the DB team. The above is >>>>referring to their search _extensions_ that probe many lines way more deeply >>>>than others. If you want to call extensions a form of selective search, that >>>>is ok. It doesn't meet the definition used in AI literature of course, where >>>>it means taking a list of moves and discarding some without searching them at >>>>all. >>> >>>The quoted text describes DB as a selective program, no brute force. I >>>don't see how you can explain it otherwise. The text is crystal clear. >>> >>> >> >>Why don't you simplyh ask Hsu, or are you afraid you will get an answer >>you don't want? DB was _always_ brute force. Every document written about >>DB said this. The paragraph you are quoting is talking about "selective >>search extensions" which was one of the real innovations from the Deep Thought >>development (singular extensions, later used by Lang, Kittinger, Moreland, >>Hyatt, who knows who else). >> >>You _know_ they were basically in the same mold as the rest of us. This has >>_never_ been in doubt. >> >>If you do doubt it, just ask the horse's mouth, since you don't want to believe >>me. > >I do not believe to things that seem illogical. > >I do not want to believe the 17-19 brute force depth with no pruning of deep >blue because it sounds too good to be right. You are right Uri. Doing 17-19 brute force in the middle game is IMPOSSIBLE. Ed >I hope programmers will check how many nodes they need to get the same brute >force depthes of deeper blue with perfect order of moves(evaluation 0.00 for all >positions). > >I am not sure if it is possible to get the same depth as deep blue in all the >cases(assuming perfect order of moves) and if you remember that the order of >moves is not perfect(otherwise you do not need to search) and that Deeper blue >used extensions then even if it is possible to search their depth with 1/2 of >their nodes then it is illogical. > >Uri
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.