Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:32:03 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 19:14:17, Vincent Diepeveen 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 > >We talk about an email around the year 2000 (in 1999 you still said >12 ply) from a dude called Campbell , not the programmer of the thing >Hsu. He probably referred to 'average' search depth. They have a big >table later in the paper *average* search depth. First, it wasn't from Murray, it was from Andrew, a different member of the team. You obviously don't know any of them so I won't go farther there. Second, if you recall the email, Andrew _specifically_ said he talked to CB (Crazy Bird, AKA Hsu) to verify that it had not been changed in meaning. What more can I say? > >Suggesting that deep blue 2 which was only slightly faster than deep blue 1 >(no more than a factor 2) getting suddenly 6 plies extra is not possible. I don't know what you mean. I personally watched deep thought search 10-11 plies deep in the middlegame in 1989-1994 games at ACM and WCCC events. I _saw_ that. Deep Though was credited with roughly 1-2M nodes per second by Hsu and team. DB was clearly a hundred times faster. Which should certainly produce 5 more plies at their 4.0 branching factor... More than that is not worth arguing about. You continually say what can't be done, only changing your mind when _you_ can do it. I personally don't operate that way. I prefer to try it... > >>that "minimum software depth" is the software depth they searched to without >>extensions? 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...
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.