Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:02:11 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 02:13:49, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I don't see anything that says that DB did more extensions than Deep Thought. In fact the paper you have says exactly the opposite, that late deep thought versions used the _identical_ search algorithm that ended up in deep blue.
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.