Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:25:55 01/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 2002 at 02:42:42, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On January 28, 2002 at 13:08:48, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On January 27, 2002 at 21:36:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 2002 at 04:07:42, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 27, 2002 at 00:47:04, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>11(6) means 11 plies in software, plus 6 more in the hardware. That was >>>>>discussed here and on r.g.c.c. several times. >>>>> >>>>>Eugene >>>> >>>>This was discussed but there was no agreement about the meaning. >>>>I did not express opinion about the meaning of 11(6) and I only expres >>> >>> >>>There is no need for any "agreement" here. This is not an "opinion" it >>>is a _direct statement_ by the deep blue team. Therefore no "agreement" >>>needs to be reached as to its meaning. I would think they _know_. >> >>There is not a statement like this from them Bob, i never nor >>any other CCC member saw ever one. In contradiction >>in IE99 something else was said and about older versions of DB there >>was no unclearity either what depth they got. Vincent, please get your facts straight. I published, with permission, an excerpt from an email from the DB guys. It was _crystal clear_ as to the meaning of the 11(6) notation. 11 plies in software, plus 6 more plies in hardware. There was no confusion, no guessing, a direct quote that I posted here. >> >>Also deep blue junior when analyzing at the ICC with kasparov-kramnik >>was very clear in what depth they searched after a few minutes and >>what it missed tactically compared to diep, which got 1 ply more, >>was also real simple to see (that diep version DID have singular >>extensions btw). >> >>Yet you believe that they search 7 ply deeper by adding a few more cpu's, >>by a statement which was NOT done by Hsu and only emailed to you? >> >>Bit unlikely isn't it bob? Not when they _specificaly_ state what the output means. If they say it means "X" then I assume it means "X"... > >We've been over this umpteen times before, but your memory is bad. I agree 100%. You can find the post from me in the archives here. If you prefer, I can post it again. In fact... quote on------------------------------------------------------------------- In the DT logs, the number in () after the plies is indeed the depth of the HW. It was changed dynamically, but only within a narrow range (3, 4, somethimes 5). I would not be surprise if CB kept this notation, but I don't know for sure. As you say, too low, and the HW ends up idle because the host is too slow. Too high, and the host is bored... However the real reason for not letting the HW go too deep is search efficiency: the HW does not use the transposition table, hence it was best to balance the memory bandwidth available on the host for hash table accesses. quote off------------------------------------------------------------------ That was about deep thought. I then asked them about DB's logs: quote on------------------------------------------------------------------- CB is in town this week and I had lunch with him, where we chatted a bit about DB and the like. A while back, when you looked over DB's logs (put up by Murray without IBM caring much), you were impressed by their depth and branching factor. Well, the depth notation is as I told you and just like it was in DT, so it really does go *that* deep... quote off------------------------------------------------------------------ That _does_ seem to be pretty clear with no interpretation required. It is a _direct quote_ unchanged by me in any way. > >11(6) => 11 plies in software, 6 plies in hardware is directly documented in >their publications. Seeing as you're a CS student in games, you really ought to >be familiar with them. > >Dave
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.