Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 02:13:03 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2002 at 15:35:12, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 13, 2002 at 14:40:12, James Swafford wrote: > >I wonder why. there is just one person ever in this whole >planet who said 12(6) = 18 ply, and that's robert hyatt. > >there is 4 the same statements from hsu. > a) page 5 at his paper. > b) 3 in this talk > >there is many statements from hyatt in 98 and 99 that it was >getting 12 ply, when in 99 at world champs many got 12 ply it was >18 ply suddenly... > >But the clearest statement is next: > >EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: kib question from ardee: Does "12(6)" mean 12 total ply or >12+6=18 total ply? This has the been source of huge arguments for years! > >directly the answer came a few seconds later: > >CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 12 total in terms of brute force. 6 is just the max >partition in hardware. > > Utter nonsense. What would be sense of a million dollar hardware that is restricted for ply 1 to 6? Even my Super Forte on a 5Mhz 65xx got 6 ply Brute Force in 1987. 480 processors that fight for 48000 positions? 12 ply software, then harware kicks in. 12 ply + 6 ply means a search depth <= 18 ply. Andreas
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.