Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 01:34:16 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2002 at 23:39:29, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Often when they refer to their search tree they refer to the software depth only. Which paper is causing the kerfuffle? Dave
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.