Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:32:17 08/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 2002 at 19:04:31, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Correct. But the paper _also_ says that the tests were run on deep blue junior, a single SP2 processor with 24 chess processors rather than the usual 16. I could see why adding more processors would result in a ply less being done in the hardware, for the balancing reasons I have explained several times here... Deep Blue had a different configuration, one SP2 with 16 chess procssors. An extra ply would probably be needed on the chess processors or they would out-run the SP2 and the SP2 would be waiting too much.
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.