Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:04:31 08/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2002 at 18:12:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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." In the paper it was claimed that iteration x means x-4 plies in the software and 4 plies in the hardware. 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.