Author: Mike S.
Date: 17:10:26 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 11:07:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >(...) >1. They reported depth as 11(6) for example. According to the deep blue >team, and regardless of what others will say about it, this supposedly means >that they did 11 plies in software, plus another 6 in hardware. When I looked at some of the logs, I had the impression that "11(6)" was reported most often, IOW. we can probably say that it was the *typical* search depth reported (except additional extension depths we do not know), in the middlegame, 1997. Would you agree with that from your study of the logs? Another thing I'm not sure of is: *When* could relatively safely be claimed, that DB.'s depth is reached again: a) when a current prog reaches at least 16 plies as a typical middlegame depth, because some search techniques used now (which DB. didn't use), make up for the missing ply (at least), or b) when 17 plies are reached, not earlier, or c) a program would have to reach more than 17 plies, because DB used much more knowledge which current software probably does not yet use to that extent. I search for expert's opinions of *when* we can say something like "Yes, now with this specific performance [## plies etc.] we can safely say - as it's our *best guess*, since no direct head-to-head match is possible - that this new chess computer is better than Deep Blue was." But the claim should be illustrated by somewhat convincing figures (node rate is not convincing enough IMO, although still impressive). Maybe the ply depth is; I know it's also no perfect comparison though. But we don't have anything better probably. A few positons/moves to compare are not enough. Thanks, Mike Scheidl
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.