Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:39:04 01/30/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2002 at 14:15:32, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 30, 2002 at 14:00:32, David Rasmussen wrote: > >>On January 30, 2002 at 09:43:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>I don't know anything about what Bob has stated, but I agree that 18 ply >>fullwidth was/is impossible, even with 200 Mn/s. >> >>Please email me how you do singular extensions, Vincent. :) > >I've done 18 ply searches with a PC. What makes you think it is impossible for >a machine that can peak at one billion nodes per second? > >They did not use null move, but neither did they blindly search the whole tree. I suggest that you try to do with Crafty without null move pruning 18 ply search in the same positions that deeper blue was supposed to search 18 plies. Note that Crafty without null move pruning does not search all the tree. I am interested to know how many nodes do you need. you can claim that they had more hash tables so try to search 16 plies and guess the number of relevant nodes based on the branching factor. If you think that deeper blue used more hash tables then please search 16 plies twice when the hash tables is twice bigger in the second time(I think that doubling the hash tables from 128 Mbytes to 256 Mbytes is not going to change the time significantly) If Crafty without null move pruning cannot search 18 plies in similiar number of nodes then I do not believe that deeper blue that is supposed to use more extensions could do it. Uri
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.