Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:04:57 08/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2002 at 16:07:05, Alvaro Jose Povoa Cardoso wrote: >On August 23, 2002 at 09:46:04, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 22, 2002 at 21:42:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 22, 2002 at 16:09:07, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On August 22, 2002 at 15:51:28, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 22, 2002 at 06:47:34, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>That does not make sense - it only does when you take the first number as >>>>>>the nominal ply depth and the second number as the part of that that was >>>>>>done by the hardware searches. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>So what does it mean when you have searches like this, >>>>> >>>>>--> 17. Be3 <-- 23/113:12 >>>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>>Guessing Qc7 >>>>> 3(4) 25 T=0 >>>>>qd1d2 Pc5c4 pb3c4P >>>>> 4(5) 25 T=0 >>>>>qd1d2 Pc5c4 pb3c4P >>>>> 5(5)[Qd2](25) 25 T=1 >>>>>qd1d2 Pc5c4 pb3c4P >>>>> 6(5)[Qd2](25) 25 T=2 >>>>>qd1d2 Pc5c4 pb3c4P Qc7c4p >>>>> 7(5) #[Qd2](28)##################################### 28 T=4 >>>>>qd1d2 Re8b8 nf3e5P Pd6e5n >>>>> 8(6) #[Qd2](28)##################################### 28 T=12 >>>>>qd1d2 Re8b8 bc2d3 Pa6a5 pc3c4 >>>>> 9(6)<ch> 'ng6' >>>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>>--> Ne7g6 <-- >>>>>--------------------------------------- >>>>> 28 T=19 >>>>>qd1d2 >>>>> 3(4)[Qd2](30) 30^ T=1 >>>>>qd1d2 Pc5c4 pb3c4P Pb5c4p >>>>> 3(5) 35 T=1 >>>>>qd1d2 Qd8c7 pb3b4 Pc5c4 be3h6P >>>>> 4(5) 35 T=1 >>>>>qd1d2 Pa6a5 pa2a3 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>where you have depths like 3(4)? They can't have 3 nominal plies, where 4 of >>>>>those plies come from the hardware, because obviously that's impossible. >>>> >>>>A good question. >>>> >>>>I do not understand the meaning of the second mnumber >>>>but the first number is clearly the brute force depth based on their paper. >>>> >>>>Maybe the second number is about some limit about the extensions but OI do not >>>>know. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>The second number doesn't vary enough to be relevant to extensions. >> >>It is clearly not the maximal number of plies for extensions but it may be >>relevant to extensions. >> >>Uri > > >Could it be the minimum number of plies for extensions, witch translates to the >maximum number of plies for brute force? > >Alvaro I don't believe so. IE one important piece of data is "how deep are the chess processors searching?" This number has to be dynamically tuned. IE in the deep blue paper we are looking at, they are _really_ using the DB Jr hardware, in a bit of an odd configuration. IE A normal DB2 SP2 processor had 16 chess processors. But DB Jr had 24. As a result, the chess processors had to be set to a shallower depth than normal to keep up with the SP2 position production rate. Which probably explains their "4 ply" comment in the paper. But that was because they were testing on DB Jr... I am still certain that the (N) number is hardware search depth. They _always_ did that.
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.