Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:24:41 09/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 08, 2001 at 14:07:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 08, 2001 at 13:50:01, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Secondly we have a lot of data about DT's speed. And it for example >>didn't find h3 which is in the LCTII testset against Karpov. >> >>So it lost from karpov. >> >>You must add the both positions. >> >>The h3 trick against karpov is just a 12 ply thing and they didn't >>even find that one. > >Yes, but which DT was it? This game was played after the Karpov >game if my dates are correct. > >The DT/DB guys made quite impressive speed improvements coming >from 50knps with Chiptest to 200M with DB. Chiptest ran at 350K nodes per second. Versions of deep thought simply added multiple chiptest processors to ramp the speed. Hsu claimed that the last deep thought version searched at around 2M nodes per second, effectively. I agree that their "progression" was amazing. Far and away better than what normal hardware would have given. > >I don't care it didn't find the h3 trick. Perhaps their endgame >eval was lacking there. Perhaps they just had bad luck. Perhaps >they had a bug. > >The question was a post where DB saw something the current >programs can't see. This is one. > >-- >GCP I wish I could give more information about "the position". All I recall is that Bert and I were sitting at the table, with Murray and Hsu on the other side. Hsu left to go to the restroom. after a couple of minutes into a search (I don't recall whether it was a ponder search or right after we had made a move) murray noticed that the program had failed high. He commented "it is picking on your bishop and the score just jumped." When I asked him "how much" he said "+2". Since we were not seeing any problem, Bert and I were assuming they had some sort of quirk in the hardware or software. But our score steadily dropped until several moves later the bottom dropped out and we were at -2 or so. I remember that the problem started on the move of the c-pawn, as discussed a year ago or so. And at that point their search failed high. I don't recall the depth. I do remember that in their PV (the part displayed by the software) they indicated which moves were singular-extended, and most of them were in that particular position. I had seen them do this to others, so it wasn't particularly remarkable at the time and I didn't take any careful notes. I did make a note on the log file, but that paper log has long since been lost somewhere or other.
This page took 0.02 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.