Author: Uri Blass
Date: 18:07:30 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 20:10:26, Mike S. wrote: >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. You assume here that the search depth of deeper blue was 17 plies If you read this thread you can see that the average search depth of deep blue was 12.2 plies. I agree that 12.2 plies are not enough to reach deep blue depth because deeper blue did more extensions but programs of today search clearly deeper than 12.2 plies. My opinion is that Deep Fritz or Deep Junior on A1500 are not weaker than Deeper blue and if you give them more than one processor they are even better than deeper blue of 1997. 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.