Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:06:26 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 06:13:26, Johan Melin wrote: You are 100% correct Johan. But there is another thing. If a drive is 20GB do you sell it as 20 GB or as 14(6) GB? Of course the deep blue team would shout it out loud if they had gotten 18 ply instead of 12. Capitals. IBM would have marketed with: "we get a search depth no one ever got". Instead of the weak 'nodes a second' argument. Every idiot can get many nodes a second. Note that you should read that paper too. It very explicitly says 12.2 ply. Note they even cheated on how they calculated that depth. Hsu very clearly says what depth they searched without lying. But the second sentence is always enough for idiots who do not read well, to conclude they got +6 ply somehow. This tells to me very clearly that Hsu lied bigtime to Robert Hyatt some years ago. >On October 16, 2002 at 23:35:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 15, 2002 at 14:01:35, Johan Melin wrote: >> >>>On October 14, 2002 at 07:34:16, Bas Hamstra wrote: >>> >>>>Bob, did you read the Hsu transcript posted here? It is pretty clear to me that >>>>Hsu himself says 12 ply fullwidth *total*. Case closed. Please read the complete >>>>transcript. >>>> >>>>Best regards, >>>>Bas. >>> >>>I agree. The transcript with Hsu is clear. But it would be out of character for >>>CCC if everybody just agreed with each other, there still has to be a fight ... >>>;) >>> >>>/Johan Melin >> >> >>Here is the relevant part of the transcript: >> > >There are other relevant parts? How about: > >---------------------------------- >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! >CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 12 total in terms of brute force. 6 is just >the max partition in hardware. >---------------------------------- > >He sais 12 _total_. He also refers to 6 as "just", implying that it is less >important than the 12. > >If somebody tells you that "the storage capacity of this harddrive is 20 GB, 5 >GB is just the linux partition", then what is the storage capacity? 25 GB? > >---------------------------------- >EeEk(* DM) kibitzes: question from parabola444: You mentioned Deep >Blue searched about 12 plies brute force + extensions, which is >similar to what pc programs these days get on a fast pc - since Deep >Blue hardware was much faster, how come it didn't search significantly >deeper ? >CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: to all the book readers, if you do like the >book, please tell your friends would might be interested. thanks. >CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: replace would with who:). >CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: we were using fairly extensive search >extensions, and the decision not to use null move pruning was an >deliberate one. >---------------------------------- > >The interesting part here is not just what he says, but what he doesn't say. If >they search 18 plies nominal, he would have said so. Why would he hold back such >a statement? He indirectly agrees to searching only 12 plies. > > >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 12(6) means 12 plies of brute force (not >>counting the search extensions & quiescence). >>CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: 6 means the maximum hardware search depth >>allowed. >>CrazyBird(DM) kibitzes: this means that the PV could be up to 6 plies >>deeper before quiescence. >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Note that in the first line he states "not counting ..." but does not mention >any extra plies from hardware. Wouldn't 6 plies be more significant than >quiescence? So why doesn't he mention that it isn't included in the 12 plies? > >> >>OK, some questions: >> >>1. If 12(6) means 12 plies total, with 6 done in hardware, how do you reconcile >>that >>_last_ sentence above (the PV could be up to 6 plies _deeper_ before >>quiescence). >>Deeper than what? Only possible answer is deeper than 12 plies. > >He is talking about the PV. Their hardware return a score, but no PV. So >sometimes they didn't get a complete PV, and say "the pv COULD BE UP TO ...". > >> >>2. If 12(6) means 12 plies total, with 6 in hardware, what does 4(5) mean? 4 >>plies total > >Uri Blass suggests aggresive extensions that increase the remaining depth. > >Another possibility is that it is only "maximum hardware search depth allowed". >Note maximum and allowed. That suggests it is only a limit, that might not have >been reached. > >>with 5 done in hardware? Which means the SP hardware does _no_ searching and >>that >>_everything_ (and then some it seems) is done by the hardware chess chips? >> > >I do not think that they always drop into the hardware when they reach the >maximum allowed hardware depth. Some lines are probably search deeper in >software, and then given a shallow hardware search. 4(5) doesn't mean they >search everything to 5 plies in hardware, only that some such deep searches are >allowed. > >One reason for this behaivior would be to balance the load, another to get as >much of the PV as possible. > >>Neither of those matches what he says above. >> >>I read his explanation of 12(6) as "12 plies of brute force, up to 6 more plies >>of hardware >>search [which is not brute-force as he has explained elsewhere, because of the >>forward pruning >>they were doing]". I don't see any _other_ way to take the above, which came >>_directly_ from >>the answer he gave... So I won't say 12(6) means 18 plies, but it _clearly_ >>means "more than >>12 plies, and up to 18 plies"... At least that has to be true... >> > >So you say they are presenting their search depth in such a way that it isn't >possible to read what the nominal depth was? Why would they do that? > >And why, why, why would he not mention it when answering the questions? And why >would he say that the 6 is "just the max partition in hardware"? > >Perhaps he uses the term "brute force" in a slightly inexact way. I would call >both KnightDreamer and Crafty "brute forcers", even thought they use pruning. > >/Johan Melin > >>Otherwise you can't reconcile _anything_ with the log files and the 4(5) type >>notation...
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.