Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:06:31 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 08:42:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On April 24, 2001 at 20:30:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 24, 2001 at 13:59:03, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2001 at 13:37:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Nd6b7 bc5e3 Nb7d6 ra6a7 Bf8e7 >>>> 9(6) #[axb5](49)#################################### 49 T=55 >>>>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Nd6b7 bc5b6 Ra8a6r ra1a6R Nb7d6 >>>>10(6) #[axb5](49)##################################### 49 T=160 >>>>pa4b5P Pa6b5p ra2a6 Nd6b7 bc5f8B Qe8f8b ng3f5 Ra8a6r ra1a6R Rc8b8 >>>>11(6) #[axb5](49)#[Nf5](50) 50 T=308 >>>>ng3f5 Nd6f5n pe4f5N Pb5a4p bc2a4P Bd7a4b ra2a4B Qe8d7 bc5f8B Rc8f8b pf5f6 Qd7d5p >>> >>>Very confusing is whether it's a 11 ply PV or 12 ply pv. >> >> >>What is the confuision. Hsu said "11(6) means 11 plies nominal in software, >>6 more plies in the chess chips." What can _possibly_ be confusing about >>that? > > >Then Hsu is a big liar: based on what??? > > ><ch> 'c' >--------------------------------------- >--> 1. e4 <-- 39/119:51 >--------------------------------------- >Guessing c5 > 3(4)[Nf3](30) 30^ T=1 >ng1f3 Qd8c7 > 3(5) 38 T=2 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 > 4(5) 38 T=2 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 > 5(5)[Nf3](52) 52 T=2 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 > 6(5)[Nf3](68) 68 T=4 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 nb1c3 > 7(5) #[Nf3](68) 68 T=5 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 nb1c3 Ng8f6 > 8(6) #[Nf3](59) 59 T=6 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 bf1b5 Qd8b6 nb1a3 > 9(6) #[Nf3](66) 66 T=8 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 nb1c3 Ng8f6 bf1e2 Pd7d6 >10(6) #[Nf3](53) 53 T=18 >ng1f3 Nb8c6 bf1b5 Ng8f6 pe4e5 Nf6g4 bb5c6N Pd7c6b >11(6)<ch> 'e5' >--------------------------------------- >--> Pe7e5 <-- >--------------------------------------- > >the 11 ply PV here doesn't show 11 ply or more. Knowing that >at least 3 moves in this pv get extended it's very questionable >whether they searched more as 5 ply in software here apart >from the extensions. So what? For every such PV you show that is short, I can show two that are normal. I get short PVs all the time. > >the 7(5) pv : ng1f3 Nb8c6 nb1c3 > >at the start of a game with 30 SP processors and probably sufficient >hash, does that look like a 12 ply PV to you? want me to post some 14 ply searches with a 2 ply PV from crafty? Got plenty of them... > >To me it looks like a 2 ply PV + 1 pv extension and 5 ply in hardware... > >Don't tell me that every game they had bugs in hashing :) > >Best regards, >Vincent > > > >> >>> >>>the moves with n or N behind it means captures. DB extends in software >>>nearly all captures. I see around 3 non capturing moves here. >> >>Where do you get that? Their main extension is the singular extension. >>Captures don't trigger that every time. >> >> >>> >>>So 5 or 6 ply in software + capture extensions >>>(either recapture extensions or SE) >>>+ 6 ply in hardware. >>> >>>Very logical. >>> >>>note it's a 12 ply PV you see here *not* a 11 ply pv. >> >>Vincent... you are trying to make up the rules as you go. I specifically >>asked Hsu about the depth. Your interpretation is totally off-the-wall and >>irrelevant to the discussion. He said that the 11 above means that the >>software was started with a depth of "11", which would be reduced by one >>for each ply searched, and extended as indicated based on their normal >>extension logic. When depth reaches zero, they then give that position to >>a chess processor which then searches from that position for N plies, where >>N in this case is 6 more. The only difference is that singular extensions >>don't happen in the hardware. >> >>The chess processors _can_ probe a hash table. But he reported that he did >>not have time to design a 16-port memory module for each chess board... so >>the 1997 version didn't do hash probes. But only because he didn't have time >>to do it, not because it is impossible to do. >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>I get way longer lines at 12 ply with extensions turned on as this :) >> >> >>So what. You don't have the same problem. They used 32 processors. A >>single processor searched about 1/2 way thru the nominal software depth, >>then positions were farmed out to 32 nodes on the SP (which use message >>passing for communication and have distributed memory). After depth goes >>to zero, the remainder of the search was done by chess processors that have >>_no_ hash memory, and _no_ PV facilities... Which means they will _never_ >>see the part of the PV searched by the chess hardware. And it is likely >>that they will never see all of the software PV since the PV was searched >>by different processors with no shared hash... >> >>Looking at the length of the PV is meaningless, and I have pointed this out >>before. They can _not_ get a PV from the chess hardware. _period_. It is >>simply impossible as it was not designed into the processors, and with no >>hash table, there is no other way to do it... >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>qf2g3 Pg7g5 >>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>--> 33. Nf5 <-- 7/65:41 >>>>--------------------------------------- >>> >>>This is caused by 30 diff processors with SE implemented. >>>I have those huge lines too in DIEP when i turn on all extensions! >>> >>>No big deal. >>> >>>If 6(6) would mean 6 ply in software and 6 ply in hardware, >>>then why do we see only 5 ply line? >> >>See above. I get short PVs all the time. Since their hash is distributed >>over 32 nodes, who knows what gets overwritten, and when... >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>Even if you overwrite on an SP computer you still get 6 ply! >> >>Nope. They reconstruct PV from hash, since they can't back the PV up >>from endpoints due to hardware. >> >> >> >>> >>>Now the theoretic impossibility of searching 17 ply fullwidth >>>*with* all those extensions the first 11 ply. >>> >>>Apart that each search line must be like 15 ply then or so, >>>It's going to use up a lot of nodes. >>> >>>For deep blue it would cost around 5^6 more as the nodes they got in 1997! >>> >>>>Again I reiterate, the notation 11(6) means 11 plies in software search, >>>>6 plies in the hardware, plus the quiescence in hardware. There is _no_ >>>>argument with this. Simply ask any of the DB guys. 11(6) is a total of >>>>17 plies of search. >>> >>>Noop it is not Bob. It is 11 or 12 plies of search from which 6 ply >>>in hardware. Makes sense. Logical and clearly visible from the lines. >>> >> >> >>No it doesn't. You don't get to directly contradict the DB team, just because >>you can't imagine how it could be done. If half of the search were done by >>the chess processors, you would _never_ see a 12 ply PV, since the chess >>processors can't provide _any_ PV at all. >> >> >> >> >>>The first few ply >>> >>>Note that if it would be 11 ply of search with pruning + 6 ply in hardware, >>>then deep blue is the tactical worst program in history as it sees >>>Bf5 in game 6 at 8(6) which would be 14 ply then, which doesn't make >>>sense! Not even if you forward prune a lot! >>> >>>Shredder needs 8 ply for it too. It's a tactical queen win. >>>Shredder is doing recapture extensions as far as i know. >>> >>>If i turn on extensions in diep i also need 8 plies. without recapture >>>extensions i need 9 or 10 ply. >>> >>>Idem for other progs! >>> >>>Best regards, >>>Vincent >>> >> >>So? Db is not "other progs"...
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.