Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:35:53 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 14:51:17, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 14:44:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>Please look at page 5 very carefully 12.2 ply it says. >> >>Yes. And take the logs and add up the _first_ number from each iteration >>and divide by N. Guess what you get? 12.2... >> >>Which was the software part of their search. > >They certainly don't say the last. > >A bit further, you can see that a nominal depth of 12 compromised 8 ply >nominal in software. Add 4-5 hardware ply and you get 12-13 ply. > >8 ply in software, plus hardware plies. Not 12 ply in software plus >hardware plies. > >The paper is pretty conclusive that they were not searching 18 ply >nominally, but only 12 ply. They even literally wrote it. > >-- >GCP It doesn't read like what the team said, that is for sure. But there are two key pieces of data that I _personally_ know to be true: (1) deep thought searched 10-11 plies in 1989 at the WCCC in Alberta. It continued to search that deep thru the 1994 ACM event in Cape May, New Jersey. I was there. I watched their monitor as we sat around the table watching their games. So there is absolutely no doubt about that 10-11 ply number as I _know_ what was happening in those games. (2) deep blue was claimed to be 100X faster. That should turn into 4-5 plies at their EBF as shown in the logs... More than that I won't speculate on. But Cray Blitz was searching 9-10 plies at 400K nodes per second, and I _know_ DT was out-searching us at _least_ a ply, plus their singular extensions that we were not using in 1989.
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.