Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:09:35 08/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2002 at 15:51:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: <snipped> >>The question is if they mean to the plies that they sacrificed for the singular >>extensions. > >I believe so. the only comment to any sort of selective forward pruning that >I have ever heard from then was the futility pruning comment regarding the >chess processor. In the games vs the micros, they said that they turned this >off which slowed them by a factor of 10 or so, somehow... The point is that they did not say in the paper that they sacrificed 2 plies for singular extensions but that they sacrificed 2 plies for selective search algorithms. singular extensions are not selective search. selective search is what computer did in the past when they were not fast enough. No doubt that it does not make sense to do selective search close to the root but doing selective search in the last 6 plies is a possible idea to consider. <snipped> >>In Crafty the processors always work and in deeper blue it was different. > >Not exactly. When talking to Hsu on many different occasions, he clearly said >that it was not hard to run the chess processors at 50-70% duty cycle. He >explained why 100% was very difficult (because of the balance between host >processor speed and chess processor speed), but he was pretty clear about >the 50%-70%. Which ought to translate to 500M-700M RAW nps on DB. was not hard does not mean that it was done. The question is how much time he needed to do it and what he considered as not hard. If he needed some weeks and he considered the evaluation as more important then it is possible that he focussed on the evaluation. 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.