Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:21:08 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 14:48:04, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 14:42:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >Bob if you don't read what they write, >then please show us you can do math. > >Please quote what is the theoretic number to search FULLWIDTH without >hashtables OR killermoves and WITH singular extensions a treesize >of 18 ply.. > First, they don't claim to do "fullwidth" in the hardware. Second, we _know_ they don't because their branching factor could not possibly get down to 4.0 without null-move and no pruning of any kind. Therefore, they _are_ doing something different in the hardware. Hsu has mentioned futility pruning there. I have never had the chance to ask him to explain what that means. Third, how about answering the question "how can they get a branching factor of less than 4.0 by going full-width?" The obvious answer is "they can't." The obvious conclusion is that they are not "full width". Their branching factor can be easily computed from the logs, without having to take my word for it... > > >>On August 21, 2002 at 14:22:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On August 21, 2002 at 11:10:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On August 21, 2002 at 09:00:19, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 21, 2002 at 08:22:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On August 21, 2002 at 08:13:47, emerson tan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>wHATA IS DEEP BLUES AVERAGE PLY LEVEL ON TOURNAMENT TIME CONTROL, I UNDERSTAND >>>>>>>THAT IT CALCULATES 200 MILLION POSITIONS PER SECOND BUT NEVER HEARD OF ITS >>>>>>>AVERAGE PLY. THANKS >>>>>> >>>>>>they estimate it at 126 million nodes a seconda gainst deep blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>It had a nominal search depth (depth limit) of 12 ply. With a lot of >>>>>>tactical extensions a lot of lines were searched at 17 ply though. >>>>>> >>>>>>that's however true for all chess programs. I averaged in DIEP way >>>>>>deeper. It depends basically whether you count hashtable cutoffs with >>>>>>the depth or not. I tend to not count them. In hardware there was not >>>>>>a hashtable. >>>>>> >>>>>>Average search depth says nothing. The nominal search depth is more important. >>>>>>This was 12 ply. So the weakest link were lines of 12 ply simply. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>Vincent >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Deep Blue II did searches with extensions of 17 ply + at 3 min. per move and >>>>>wasn't uncommon to actually hit 22 plys. >>>>> >>>>>Dr. Robert Hyatt watched this with his own eyes, so I'm sure he'll have >>>>>something relevant to say on this matter. >>>> >>>>No I won't. :) This is a hopeless argument. Vincent calls the entire group >>>>"liars" when they say 12(6) means 12 plies in software plus another 6 in >>>>hardware. Since the machine is not operational, all we can do is either believe >>>>the principals or not... I believe them myself, but others can believe whatever >>>>they want... it won't make one scintilla of difference to the deep blue story >>>>of course. >>> >>>you are the only one Bob, because you still didn't take the effort to >>>read what Hsu wrote. >> >>I _posted_ what he and two other members of the team wrote. >> >>You simply have problems with comprehension and try to bend things into >>your own reality/interpretation... >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Also Deep Blue II at times searched 1,000,000,000 plys a sec. and wasn't all >>>>>that uncommon to do so! >>>>> >>>>>Terry
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.