Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:50:55 10/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2002 at 18:21:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... My guess is that Hsu meant that the pv could be 6 plies deeper before quiescence and extensions but forgot to say the word extensions > > >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>>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... I do not try to defend vincent explanation but to explain how it is possible to get 4 plies by normal definition when 5 is the maximal depth of the hardware. Suppose that the software searches in some line 3 plies and the remaining depth after the 3 plies is 5 thanks to extension. It means that the normal depth of the search was 4 and the maximal depth of the hardware was 5. 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.