Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 16:16:43 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 18:22:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 17:52:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On August 21, 2002 at 17:31:53, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 21, 2002 at 17:21:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>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. >>> >>>The 12.2 is software+hardware depth. >>>It is very clear from their paper. >>> >>>see page 13 table 2 >>> >>>iteration 12 >>>minimum software depth 8 >>> >>>The explanation say that is it about the position before white's move >>>in game 2 against kasparov. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>I don't begin to know how to interpret those numbers in light of the email >>I have received from the DB group about the 12(6) issue. IE do you assume >>that "minimum software depth" is the software depth they searched to without >>extensions? > >Yes > >> I don't know enough to guess there, since this doesn't seem to >>quite square with the explanation they have sent me (and which I posted here >>a few months back)... >> >>It is not clear who precisely wrote the paper, which would make interpreting >>this a bit less clear. Obviously Hsu has been gone for a couple of years, >>so a bit of confusion could easily creep in. Some of the data actually seems >>to sound like deep blue 1, while the paper seems to imply that it is about >>deep blue 2. But the numbers suggest a bit of confusion there as well... > >It seems that IBM gave misleading information about the number of nodes of >deeper blue based on this paper. IBM marketing people said during the match 200 million nodes a second. This is not far off for marketing people if it ends up to be 126 million. IBM marketing people said after the match when the rook endgame against kasparov ended in a draw "deep blue played the game perfect out of its endgame databases". Which would indicate they had a 10 men endgame database as the position was given a draw not long after there were 10 men on the board... This is about the typical marketing statement. Saying 126 mln == 200 MLN is not far off then :) >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.