Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:13:49 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 22:32:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... 4^5=1024 4^4=256 so even with branching factor of 4 and being 100 times faster they can see only less than 4 more plies. If you consider the fact that the real branching factor was more than 4 and they were less than 100 times faster(the 200M nodes by IBM was misleading and the effective speed was clearly smaller) then you get less than 3 plies. If you consider the fact that deeper blue di more extensions than deep thought then you can get less than 2 plies. 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.