Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 10:33:51 02/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2002 at 09:05:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >OK Here is the email again: > >My first question to them was "did the X(Y) depth notation in Deep Thought >mean X plies in software, Y additional plies in hardware as it did when I >watched your program?" Here is a reply from a member of the team: > >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 narror 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 >availabe on the host for hash table accesses. > >Quote Off-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >The second quote came as a response to my question "Does DB report the >depth using the same form of the X(Y) notation as was used in Deep Thought?" >Here is the answer, again: > > >Quote On--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Hi, > >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 careing >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... > >For example, in DT, 9(4) meant a 13 ply search. > >Quote Off-------------------------------------------------------------------- The last sentence is very convincing. >That is the best I can do. I asked about DT, which I saw _many_ times from >behind their monitor and they explained the X(Y) notation as I have reported, >several times. I then asked if DB kept the same notation and CB (nickname for >Hsu) said "yes it did." > >Can it be any more clear than that? No it can not, according DB team 12(6) = 18. However the statement conflicts with their own documentation, hence the confusion. So maybe I am wrong about the subject. Ed
This page took 0.01 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.