Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 10:35:57 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
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: > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >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. > >2. If 12(6) means 12 plies total, with 6 in hardware, what does 4(5) mean? 4 >plies total >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? > >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... > >Otherwise you can't reconcile _anything_ with the log files and the 4(5) type >notation... You are modifying the statements again. Statement 1 is: it is 12 ply and NOT 18. The second statement is independant from the first. Later again explicitly gets asked whether it was 12 or 18 in total, and the answer was: 12. Very clear statement. Formulating it like this is not nice of course from Hsu. But logically spoken it is a very clear statement. Repeated again later in the chat when questions and kibitzes were asking whether it was 18. Some of them he has seen. Note that when asked from reinforce(IM) what '6 ply is just the hardware partition', a kibitz which he has seen and also later asked by Eek again, he didn't go into that. Any judge here will see clear proof for 12 Bob. Logically spoken. Mathematically spoken. And of course if it was 18, IBM would have shouted it out loud in 1997 already. Getting 2 times deeper than any other machine. It would have been incredible of course. But also theoretical impossible. Hsu realizes that very well. The people who are capable of doing experiments to see whether it is possible to get beyond 12 ply much fullwidth with singular extensions and doing all other extensions as well, those people all believe it is 12 ply. There was even produced a crafty version by me, and of course i am willing to give the source code of that to any person who wants to see it, so that he can verify the changes. However no one was interested in running it. Despite that we fight about 18 ply here. Your own thing fullwidth without hashtable last 6 ply and without nullmove and with a limited form of singular extnsions even, it never gets beyond 12 ply ever. And it DOES search at 1 million nodes a second *easily*. In fact it gets speeds up to 1.5 MLN easily at todays K7s. So a 15 minute search is already far more than equal to deep blue each move. 10% efficiency from 126 MLN nodes a second = 12.6 MLN a second. You get 1 MLN a second with that version easily, and of course DBIIs 126MLN is because of what happened in the far endgame, the real speed the first few moves of a game it got perhaps 30-60 MLN nodes a second and from that 10% is just 3-6MLN nodes a second. In short, a short search with crafty there is sufficient :)
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.