Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:24:58 06/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 23, 2001 at 20:02:53, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >I do not know much details on schach, but if you give it an entire >night, then it still will show the same bad branching factor as >we were used to in 1997. What in the name of heaven are you talking about? "bad branching factor we were used to in 1997?" In 1996 I was using R=2 null-move, as was Bruce and others. _we_ were not used to any huge branching factor. My branching factor today is almost _exactly_ what it was in 1996... My branching factor also remains fairly constant regardless of the depth. It makes no sense to me that it would get smaller and smaller as you go deeper. Because eventually it would have to go below 1 and the search would actually get _faster_ as you go deeper. And that is fully nonsense. > >So posting that searching with big hashtables and with nullmove >would deliver a cool branching factor above 10 ply, that was >completely different as a statement would be made now. > >Now amazingly something else gets claimed, namely that Deep Blue >was searching 17-19 ply. I'm AMAZED some people swallowed this >big joke. > >in 1997 deep blue searched 12 ply FULLWIDTH (nullmove was too >dubious to take serious was the statement back then) and >its holy extensions would give a level increase which PC programs >would not get first 20 years. > >Now the log files are released, we can see it searched 11 to 13 ply >and that it had loads of capture extensions and some extra check >extensions or something (which is of course giving tactics of >a bit bigger depth as 11 to 13 ply, but definitely no + 6 ply... ). > >However now that PC programs all get above this search depth, then >suddenly the thing must look better as it was, and it is said now >that it searched 17 to 19 ply. > >A bigger nonsense statement is not possible! Why don't you simply write them some email and _ask_ them to explain the 11(6). Rather than declaring that it means XXXX without _ever_ having seen the program play a game up close, nor without ever having communicated with them at all. It is a bit ridiculous to claim they tell outright lies. If I compare _their_ scientific rigor with yours, I find them _far_ ahead. They don't guess, imagine, distort, fabricate, hand-wave, and so forth. They simply tell what they are doing and let the chips fall where they may. They don't make excuses when they lose (Kasparov match 1). They simply go back to work and fix what they saw. You continually talk about what your program can and can not do. It seems to play reasonably. But it is a _horrible_ example of "the typical chess program" and using it to conclude things about others makes absolutely no sense... > >Knuth is true for the last 6 plies of DB, and considering they >had mobility and huge scores for things, this means obviously that >their sorting was definitely no better as mine is. How can you make that statement without _ever_ having seen one line of their code, or one circuit on their chess processor??? > >No one can argue against that! No one but a scientist. Show me _proof_. Not imagined things. But _real_ proof. Of which you have none. > >Now a kid like you is intervening with stupid childish statements, >without realizing the historically facts and discussions. > >All i wanted to show is what Bob defending Hsu by saying >crafty would proof me incorrect. I did modify >crafty for the last 6 plies and of course used >some extensions of yours. You will be the first >to admit that it doesn't cost as much as a full >implementation of SE is costing. That is not necessarily true. PV singular extensions don't cost much at all. FH singular is more expensive, but so is this "pseudo-singular extension as well". The DB guys went to a lot of effort to avoid SE on ridiculous positions where it was meaningless. We are not currently doing any of that. So to try to compare what we do with what they did is simply stupid.
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.