Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:29:38 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 17:20:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 22, 2002 at 14:15:54, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 13:47:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Doesn't it depend on the definition of "ply"? >> >>If they use a nonstandard definition of 'ply', then it's meaningless >>to say that they did 18 ply and therefor must have been great. >> >>None of the papers imply they do anything like that. >> >>There is a very simple explanation that makes everything come >>out logical: they didn't do 18 ply but 12. But then again, that's >>not an acceptable idea to some people. >> >>-- >>GCP > >It simply isn't _reasonable_. Based on having watched them search 10-11 >plies on deep thought. To assume that they get nothing from going 100X >faster? Do you _really_ believe that? Then why not stick with the original >deep thought hardware??? Explanations: 1)The assumption of 100xfaster was wrong. 2)They used more extensions. I remember that you claimed that 2 is not correct but I did not see it in the paper. I only remember from your reply to GCP that Deep blue prototype was the basis for deep blue but I do not understand the basis as the same. 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.