Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Mathematical impossibilities regarding Deep Blue statements by Bob

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 08:06:56 01/30/02

Go up one level in this thread


On January 30, 2002 at 11:01:18, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

>On January 30, 2002 at 10:55:35, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>
>>Kevin, bob has a small problem defending deep blue as
>>40^9 is such an incredible number of nodes needed, that you
>>must not confuse it with the 'branching factor' which bob
>>uses. branching factor is something entirely different than
>>total number of nodes
>
>The branching factor is _directly_ related to the number
>of nodes needed to search to a certain depth.

branching factor is the time needed to get to the next ply n+1,
this says nothing about the total number of nodes needed to
get to ply n.

Secondly there are 480 processors which all idle at the start,
and after playing a move it is a hell of a job to get them all
searching, and they had in the software part (first 5 plies)
already a lot of nonsense stored which helps relatively more
than it does for you and me, because we search more efficiently.

>Funny how you constantly ignore counterarguments so you
>can keep spewing out nonsense at a greater rate.

i am not spewing nonsense. please redo your math course.

>--
>GCP



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.