Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:13:40 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2002 at 21:27:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: Bob we do not see you as responsible for confusion created by some vague statements of one of the deep blue team members to you. However it is wise to see many of the verbal statements they do as marketing statements and what they published as the official statements. The statement for example that the 1995 entry in the world champs didn't join under the name deep blue experimental, is another such a statement. Of course it joined as deep blue there. Whether it was a different machine, that's trivial. You was set up by a vague explained marketing statement i bet. Even yesterday the first definition Hsu gave was only very clear for people who are good in search algorithms. the average person listening there doesn't know that brute force depth excluding qsearch means everything. Even the last statement was very clear for logical thinking persons, but could have been way way clearer formulated for the average person. The reason that it wasn't formulated like that says enough to many programmers. So i do not see you as the responsible person for the confusion. It was you however who acted upon some vague statements from the deep blue team and kept saying it, despite publications already in 1999 in IEEE99 and in 2001. You really should have stopped the statements after those publications. >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. > > >First, _I_ didn't say that. The deep blue team _specifically_ said that and I >posted the >relevant part of an email showing that. So you can, at _any_ time you choose, >finally >decide to make an accurate statement (not much chance of that happening, of >course) >and perhaps say "they told bob something that was wrong." > >I don't know that what they said was wrong, because if you read Hsu's answer >today, >"12 plies, plus up to _another_ 6" seems to follow the explanation given in the >email >sent to me... > >Second, it is apparent that you have made up your mind here, just as you make it >up >in other circumstances, and then _nothing_ is going to change your mind after >that. >It is impossible. It can't be done. I can "proof" that it can't be done >because I tried >it in Diep and it didn't work..." And so forth. > >All utter nonsense. > > >> >>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. > >Why stop there. There is _another_ sentence that is important... > >"up to 6 more moves ..." > >Aha. You stop where you want so that you can "proof" something once >again??? > > >> >> >> >> >>>On October 13, 2002 at 14:25:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>On October 13, 2002 at 12:00:39, Andrew Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>It was answerred another 2 times that it's 12 ply simply, >>>>excluding qsearch+extensions. So the hardware is inside that >>>>12 ply, but the hardware depth FROM that 12 ply can be UP to >>>>6 ply. So it isn't always searching 6 ply in hardware. It's >>>>a variable depth which they can do in hardware. That explains >>>>probably extensions around mainlines with captures very well >>>>and do not forget that the chips could do up to 1 billion nodes >>>>a second in theory. >>> >>>Ok, if you say that was answered, I believe you, but that >>>doesn't sound like what the quote I responded to in a thread below >>>meant. Can you provide the transcript for this? Seriously, >>>I would very much like to see it. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>It searched on average over a period of 3 minutes only 126 MLN >>>>nodes from that. that's only 10% effective usage or so each >>>>chip. That means that there are *always* loads of chips idling. >>>> >>>>So getting extra processors to the PV is a very clever thing to >>>>do then. Of course you give the chips a small search depth then. >>>>2 to 3 ply is what Brutus was using at world champs 2002. Bigger >>>>search depths in hardware were too inefficient. >>>> >>>>You cannot use killermoves in hardware and you cannot use hashtables >>>>and Hsu didn't use nullmove either. With his last so many plies pruning >>>>(whatever name you want to give it, razoring, futility pruning) that means >>>>that when searching the Principal variation, you have to give many processors >>>>small search depths, because the pruning around principal variation is >>>>a lot less than for the other moves. >>>> >>>>It would be interesting to hear in a next chat how many plies the forward >>>>pruning was in the hardware part. Here just doing 1 or 2 ply didn't >>>>reduce anything. Yet i remember some statement from a talk at M$ from >>>>Hsu recently where (was it Tom kerrigan) asked Hsu about forward pruning >>>>in the hardware chips and he answerred he was doing that. >>>> >>>>So what type of pruning he did there is not so interesting. Interesting is >>>>that it saved them up to 90% nodes in hardware. That's very clever, because >>>>chrilly concluded that without forward pruning in hardware, your tree gets >>>>just TOO huge (because move ordering is near random). >>>> >>>>Chrilly uses nullmove. If Deep Blue used something else there. Only >>>>interesting thing from my viewpoint therefore is to know how many plies >>>>they did this forward pruning in hardware. >>>> >>>>My own experiments are not relevant here too much, because i use hashtable >>>>and nullmove everywhere. So it is very well possible that without nullmove >>>>the effect of forward pruning is way bigger than without. >>>> >>>>>Several people asked: >>>>> >>>>>Question: What does "12(6)" mean in Deep Blue's logs? >>>>> >>>>>Dr Hsu said, "12(6) means 12 plies of brute force (not counting the search >>>>>extensions & quiescence). 6 means the maximum hardware search depth allowed. >>>>>this means that the PV could be up to 6 plies deeper before quiescence." >>>>> >>>>>Unfortunately questions were being fed through a third-party, so it wasn't >>>>>possible to get a follow-up. >>>>> >>>>>Andrew
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.