Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:21:06 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 11:34:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 17, 2002 at 10:41:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 17, 2002 at 06:13:26, Johan Melin 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: >>>> >>> >>>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. >> >> >>No he clearly did _not_ say "12 total". He said "12 plies of brute force". He >>also >>said elsewhere that the _hardware_ does forward pruning. So "12 plies of brute >>force" >>implies that is non-hardware... > >It is not clear from it. > >suppose the hardware never pruned in the first 3 plies in the hardware when the >hardware get depth 6. I don't disagree, although I know how the hardware was implemented, and it isn't nearly so clean to try to be asymmetric based on search depth. This is basically a finite state machine and it makes far more sense for everything to be done the same way, from ply 1 to ply N, inside the hardware... >Suppose also that the software sent the hardware only lines of at least 9 moves. >You can have 12 plies of brute force when 6 is the maximal depth in the >hardware. Sure. That is why the question needs to be posed properly rather than the vague questions that were asked the last time... >> >> >> >>> >>>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? >> >>No. But nobody has said that. they have said "20 gigabytes of space". >>The hardware has 5 gigabytes of buffer." Does the thing have 20 gigs or >>25 gigs _now_??? From a speed perspective, it matters how that is done. >> >> >>> >>>---------------------------------- >>>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. >> >>Again, Hsu tries to answer what he is asked, as briefly as possible. The >>hardware does >>forward pruning. They have _always_ given the "software depth" when they >>discuss >>this kind of number. Whether he still is is up for debate, but I doubt he would >>suddenly >>change his terminology after using it for 15 years... >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>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? >>> >> >>What about the last sentence. It seems to say exactly what you say is missing. >> >>"up to 6 plies deeper". > >up to 6 plies deeper relative to the logfile. >I do not know if they did extensions in the hardware but even if I assume that >they did ply can include also extensions. > >When people says that the program search 6 plies it includes extensions so it is >possible that when 6 plies are missing it includes extensions. But "up to 6" then means "no more than 6 plies of extensions." I _know_ that they allowed two plies of extensions for every 2 plies of search, which means that a 2 ply search could go to 40+ plies if needed... The "up to 6" doesn't fit there at all... > > >> >> >> >> >>>> >>>>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 ...". >> >> >> >>That makes no sense. They don't limit the 12 ply search to 6 plies of >>extensions >>total. So he is not talking about search extensions. Saying "the PV could >>be up >>to 6 plies deeper" is _obviously_ not a reference to the missing pv from the >>hardware >>for many reasons. First, if the hardware is searching 6 plies, the PV would not >>be >>"up to 6 plies more" it would be "at _least_ 6 plies more because of the >>hardware search >>extensions + qsearch". > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>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. >> >>Again, that makes no sense in this context. It would _instantly_ have to resort >>to a >>hardware-chip only search if the above means 4 plies brute force, 5 plies of >>that done >>by hardware. > >I do not see the problem. > >It is possible that deeper blue extended 4 plies for the first 3 plies so the >first 3 plies were done in the software and the last 5 plies were done in the >hardware. Then vincent's 4(5) can't possibly be right either. Hsu _clearly_ said 4 means 4 plies of "brute-force" search. Whatever the hardware does, it does at _every_ ply, so the 4(5) explanation you are proposing just doesn't fit... > >plies is used in a different meaning here but the meaning is clear. >last 5 plies means depth 5 for the hardware and first 3 plies means first 3 >moves. > >Uri
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.