Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:25:16 10/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2002 at 07:01:27, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. Why do you keep posting that number? When the log files _clearly_ show it to be _wrong_? Ever think about doing a bit of work before putting your fingers to work??? > >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. A program doesn't need null-move to get to 6. That is a pretty common value. For even plies, raw alpha/beta and nothing else will vary quite a bit, but the basic idea is that the effective branching factor is going to hover around 6.0 unless move ordering goes south. Null-move drops that. Even non-recursive R=1 drops it. > >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.