Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:03:04 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 07:51:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 11, 2002 at 07:43:40, Uri Blass wrote: > >But he's an old idiot. He's still talking about computerchess, >forgetting how bigtime the weakest chain has gone up last few >years. In 1997 games were decided by programs blundering away >material. All programs were very weak in endgame by then too, >any random rook endgame i could win from any program in 1997. > >How things have changed there... > >Even theoretical you can proof that without nullmove and >without 'junior' type of forward pruning you can't get >18 ply fullwidth at all. > >Knuth in fact proved a lot about that already. It's so >easy. Only because this guy has 'professor' before his >name doesn't mean that he can do something that theoretical >is impossible. > >Apart from that the statements from the deep blue team >are very clear in 1999 in the IEEE advances where they >show a 12 ply search. The 12.2 average depth in their >artificial intelligence thesis. > >Then last but not least. No one got 12 ply in those days. > >I only remember fritz3 which by very dubious means got like 11 >ply. Basically some preprocessors did get 11 to 12 ply thereby >forward pruning last few plies a lot. > >None of them had things like simple mobility in the leaf eval >even. > >Now deep blue got in the past when it was deep thought with >500k nodes a second after 3 minutes sometimes a search depth >of 8 ply. With 126MLN, from which like 95% was wasted to >parallel search, they got 12.2 ply. This is another question to ask Hsu. What is the effective number of nodes of deeper blue? Is it 126M/s nodes or does he believe that with one processor and 126M/s nodes he could do better. Again people disagree here Uri
This page took 0.01 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.