Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:12:45 08/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2002 at 16:19:53, Uri Blass wrote: >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 > >No > >It cannot be brute force additional search because we know that the average >brute force depth was only slightly more than 12 plies. > >Uri Again, we don't _know_ any of this. The hardware did some unusual things, including Hsu's quietly mentioned futility pruning. They _always_ showed their depth at ACM events as a two-number combination... I have not yet seen anything that says that 12(6) doesn't mean _exactly_ what the team members have told me in the past. They have always considered the "software" part of the search as the important part, because that is the part of the search that they worked on heavily. The chess processors are much simpler, with no hashing, etc... In past events, when asked by IM Mike Valvo during a game, "what depth are you guys searching" they would typically respond "10 plies". When he asked "is that all?" Hsu would add "We are doing another 4 plies in the hardware." I would be looking on and see the 10(4) type number showing up. But they generally talked about the "software search" because it was much more complex than the simpler hardware search in DT. Back then, DT was not doing singular extensions and the like in hardware, so the hardware search was pretty primitive. Apparently they added this to the DB2 hardware search (surprising) in the last re-design... I saw that sort of "depth answer" given _many_ times... so much so that I often thought we were doing pretty close to their depth, until Hsu would remind me of those extra plies in the hardware...
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.