Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:02:57 10/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 18, 2002 at 14:59:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 18, 2002 at 03:11:41, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 18, 2002 at 00:00:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 17, 2002 at 20:50:55, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>> >>>We know some specifics. We know that the hardware didn't do 1-2 ply searches. >>>It couldn't >>>because it finished so quickly the SP2 couldn't keep up. Therefore, this still >>>doesn't work... >> >>In the example that I give the hardware did 5 plies search >>and not 1-2 ply search so I still do not see the problem. >> >>It is possible that 5 plies is the maximal depth and >>there were also cases >>when the software asked the hardware to do 4 ply search >>but not 1-2 ply search. >> >>Uri > > >OK, then again tell me how 4(5) is going to always let the hardware do 5 ply >searches >(which I don't believe by the way as he said "up to 5 plies in hardware" >recently) with only >4 plies of brute-force search. You can _not_ assume that there are extensions >in the brute >force search because in many positions, there are none... I did not say that 4(5) is going to always let the hardware do 5 ply searches. doing 5 plies search in part of the cases when in another part of the cases you do 4 ply search is enough. 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.