Author: José Carlos
Date: 08:50:52 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. Anything you say after this is totally worthless. You have demonstrated once again that your "proofs" are nothing but personal insults. I don't know what to think about the DB issue, cause I don't have enough information, but arguments like the above make me believe anything you say is false, and thus taking the opposite side. José C. >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. > >I see that as a good achievement. >And it makes sense to me! > >>On October 11, 2002 at 07:12:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On October 11, 2002 at 04:08:49, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>Isn't his article clear enough yet? >> >>Bob Hyatt still claims that it was 12 plies software and 6 plies hardware >>so I prefer to hear an answer directly from Hsu. >> >>> >>>reporting a 12.2 average search depth fullwidth. >>>I guess you never searched with a decent program fullwidth >>>with extensions. If you did, you would understand that >>>getting 12.2 ply fullwidth with loads of extensions is already nearly >>>impossible. Every extended line is searched to the full depth, >>>no pruning happens! >> >>I agree that 12.2 plies with a lot of extensions and no pruning is impossible >>for normal programs and also is impossible for deep blue in case that >>there were real 6 more plies in the hardware. >> >>The only case when it may be possible is if the 6 more plies in the hardware are >>real selective search and it means more pruning than null move with R=3 and in >>this case the 6 plies in the hardware may be eqvivalent to only 2 plies in >>software because of big probability to miss things. >> >>> >>>The interesting 2 questions are >>> a) did DB use 'no-progress pruning' in SOFTWARE (we know >>> already it used it in hardware). >> >>They explained in the article that they did not want to take risks of missing >>something in the first plies so it is clear that they did no pruning in the >>first 12 plies. >> >>If they did some pruning in the software it is clearly after it. >> >>I do not know what is exactly no progress pruning. >>Is there a difference between it and null move pruning? >> >>Is no progress pruning more aggresive than null move pruning? >> >>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.