Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:39:29 08/25/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2002 at 21:56:03, Dave Gomboc 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 > >Uh, is that what you guys are all discussing _again_? > >Sheesh. > >The first number is the depth of the software search. The second number is the >depth of the hardware search. I posted this _years_ ago after asking a member >of the DB team directly: check the archives. > >Dave That is what I was told also. However, a fairly new paper really clouds the issue in that they mix depths between DB2 in the 1997 match, DB Jr on slower hardware, etc... I think that the only explanation for the (x) number is the one given by the team to me. And apparently to you as well, and probably others that simply don't post here...
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.