Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:43:53 04/25/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 25, 2001 at 18:58:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>On April 25, 2001 at 10:06:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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...
>
>But i don't get a single one with DIEP of 2 ply at 14 ply of search.
>
>They are *not* using PVS but normal alfabeta and they don't show fail
>highs but they show mainlines here. Mainlines of just 3 ply at the
>first move is *very* uncommon!
>
>Unless you do a few ply and then use hardware!!
Here you go: time limit 8.93 (43.36)
nss depth time score variation (10)
10 1.33 -4.57 61. ... Rc5 62. Rd6 Rd5 <HT>
10-> 1.57 -4.57 61. ... Rc5 62. Rd6 Rd5 <HT>
3 ply PVs, 10 ply search. I see this all the time.
>
>Still i'm waiting for your answer on that deep blue is the tactical
>worst chess computer in the world if your statement would be true and
>8(6) means 14 ply....
I don't see anything to answer. You are basing something on a position
that is not just tactical, but it is positional as well. A different
evaluation can change that position a lot. Just like the axb5 position
that drove Kasparov nuts. DB's king safety obviously influenced that
position a _lot_...
I'm not going to speculate about what/how they see things. It is totally
pointless.
>
>
>14 ply for a program which is searching as far as i know fullwidth,
>using SE, recaptures etc, doing checks in qsearch sometimes even extending
>it a ply etc.
>
>To find a simplistic material shot 14 ply then would be unsound bad!
>
>Amazing, no program needs 14 ply for that!
>
Maybe they see _more_. Or maybe their eval favors something different than
yours or "other programs"... Or maybe your program is making a mistake. Or
maybe your program is misevaluating the position. Lots to speculate about
here...
>Idem for about all PVs it shows. I get the same mainlines nearly
>at the same depth. So if they show 10(6) then i get at 10 ply the
>same PV usually!
>
>Of course only when i turn on SE + recaptures!
I still don't believe you have SE implemented. If so, how much does the
fail-high SE cost you?
>
>And of course when DB plays a weak move DIEP usually plays a better one!
>
>Best regards,
>Vincent
And I will bet that happens one move in the game. The other N moves you would
play worse. Why speculate? You will impress me when you beat me every game,
or at least the majority of the games. DT has already done that to me.
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.