Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:52:46 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 13:35:57, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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. I'm not modifying _anything_... > >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. Maybe or maybe not. His "up to six more plies" is an interesting change in the definition... Which needs explanation... > >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. What is the version supposed to do? It is trivial to disable null-move completely to see that it will roughly search 10 plies or so in normal games... > >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. So? "my thing" also won't be going over 1M nodes per second or so either. "my thing" doesn't do _any_ forward pruning. They claim to do at least a couple of things, one canning bad captures and the other using the Kaissa "method of analogies" to eliminate moves... > >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. > How do you figure that? When deep blue is over 100x faster? >10% efficiency from 126 MLN nodes a second = 12.6 MLN a second. No way it only searched 12M nodes per second. That is pure fantasy-land crap... > >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 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.