Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 04:01:27 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 21:39:43, Dave Gomboc wrote: Look they got 12 ply in *total*. If you would have had a chessprogram in 1997 you would be not believing they got 12 ply fullwidth. You don't have a program however. In 2002 standards are different. If you say now that most expensive car in 1910 drove 15 miles an hour, then you would not believe it either i bet. chess progressed faster. 12(6) means 12 ply in total from which up to 6 ply in hardware. I hope you realize the number they give to the processors is variable. But you'll never understand that i bet. You will believe any vague ambigious statement of them, but of course they will never loudly say: "we searched 18 ply fullwidth" as that's a lie. They got 12 ply but managed all those years to formulate it only clear in artificial intelligence proceedings (average nominal search depth: 12.2 ply it clearly mentions). In 1997-1999 it was not so unclear. Bob clearly posted 12 ply here. They posted in IEEE1999 very clearly 12 ply, but only after 1999, and in 2000, some idiots like you who do not know fuck from math made that to 18 ply. Look Fritz with nullmove and forward pruning and hashtables and millions of nodes a second doesn't even get to 18 ply. And the minimal tree of c*2.8^18 is a lot smaller than 6.0^18 Because WITH forward pruning deep blue achieved b.f. = 6 which is very good in 1997. I remember my own thing from then. I remember schach which WITH nullmove and without all those checks in qsearch and WITh hashtable which gets also to that 6.0 hardly. I remember Genius which even today doesn't get 12 ply fullwidth. Not even 10. And that's with just at most 12 ply tactical extensions in *total* (including giving checks). A peanut compared of course to what gets extended by singular extensions, which extend every capture! In the paper of 2001 they very clearly show that their average search depths WITH extensions and qsearch and without the transpositions in software, that those were about 17-18 ply. That's however something different. That's where all this confusion gets from. Now you claim that's their nominal search depth? Note my maximum search depth is 128 ply with DIEP. From that it achieves in an average game about 70 ply. Majority of lines that do not get nullmove pruned nor transposition pruned are way deeper than the nominal search depth of course (singular extensions, guess why) especially if i add qsearch to it which is unlimited by the way in diep, where DB has a limit of 32 ply for every line including nominal h-search. So i must claim in the future that diep gets about 70 ply? You simply do not see that in 2002 the machine is very outdated but the only way they can do as if they still count in todays computerchess is by saying they were better than todays software. Amazing how bad reading their technical documents is giving so much confusion. Even a clear statement with a DOT behind it, it wasn't convincing you. Amazing. You give something that played pathetic chess a status which is not realistic. In 1988 they got 500k nodes a second single cpu with chiptest. You believe that those 500k nps which got them to 8 ply fullwidth, after 3 minuts, that this is a better 8 ply than the 8 ply i get? No even worse you believe it was 12 ply. As from that 8 ply 4 ply was in hardware... However if you calculate a fullwidth branching factor (in software+hardware) from that 500k nps chip to the way better 1997 chips, then you will see that 100+ MLN nodes is indeed a minimum to get that 12.2 ply. but you of course do not see that. you closed your eyes for anything relevant. Let me ask you this. WHAT must hsu say more than the already published (and non-published) 5 papers and books and statements he has done about his search depth to convince you? If he says: 12 ply from which 6 ply was hardware search depth, that's sufficient for you? No he said after the question: was it 18 ply or 12 ply? he answerred: 12 ply. DOT behind it. That's not enough for you. You really believe that if it was 18 ply, even if he pruned 2 ply of it, that he would answer 12 ply? He would be insane stupid. He's not. He's a clever guy. He answerred: 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! aics% CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 12 total in terms of brute force. 6 is just the max partition in hardware. aics% So only idiots now believe it's 18 ply. He answerred clearly 12. Best regards, Vincent >On October 14, 2002 at 09:44:06, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>So it is clear his answer was very clear : it is 12 ply. >> >>So is it clear now? > >No, it's 12 ply _in_software_, why that isn't clear to you, I don't know. > > >>Apart from that. For 18 ply you would need to see squareroot(40^18) >>nodes to search it using fullwidth. That's a minimal tree, excluding >>qsearch and other overhead. >> >>You really believed all that time that >>deep blue searched 40^9 = 262144000000000 nodes ? > >The 18 ply is not full-width. Don't be an idiot. > >>It is very obvious now that one of the deep blue team members has >>spreaded misinformation to you and to Hyatt. > >So now you're calling him a liar? Vincent, I have heard more than >enough out of you over the years, but calling the guy a liar is >beyond pathetic. > >>Note that they spreaded during the match more misinformation. For >>example they said that during the KRRPPP KRRPP endgame of kasparov, >>where deep blue managed to draw in a neat way, >>that deep blue played it perfect because the whole endgame was >>in its EGTBs. > >B.S. They never said such a thing. > >Dave
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.