Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Comparing that Deeper Blue calculated 200 vs 3 Millions for Deep Jun

Author: Keith Evans

Date: 17:52:11 02/01/03

Go up one level in this thread


On February 01, 2003 at 14:57:42, Jorge Pichard wrote:

>How much better Deep Junior program is in comparison to Deeper Blue, considering
>that Deeper Blue was about 67.8 times faster than Deep Junior and Kasparov is
>much better of a player now than he was back in 1997? I must also indicate that
>if Deep Junior or Deep Fritz was running on a special hard core super parallel
>computer like Deeper Blue, what would be the chance of Kramnik or Kasparov
>winning at least one game out of 6 in standard time control.
>
>http://www.ishipress.com/manmach2.htm
>
>pichard

I have a dumb question...

If you do 6 ply full width search without hashtables and do the same search but
with hashtables how will the node counts compare? Deep Blue didn't have hardware
hash tables and I believe that the 200 M number includes a bunch of repeated
nodes. (I use 6 plies because I believe that what the chips did in the full
width part of the search.)

Then there's the question of how the lack of a value stack for alpha beta
contributes to researches - the chips implemented a minimum-window search. How
does this affect node counts? As Hsu says "...when the new move is better than
the current best move, we may need to research the new move. We can ... repeat
the minimum-window search multiple times, raising the test value slightly each
time." (But then he says that it's just as efficient as regular alpha beta.)

Also I believe that the 200 M number doesn't account for inefficiencies of the
parallel search. The two previous items that I mentioned would be true for even
a single chess chip - if you have multiple chips working in parallel then
there's obviously going to be additional overlap.

I'm sure that this has been discussed before, but it seems like these DB node
counts are expecially misleading. I doubt that there's any chance of getting any
consensus on how they should be scaled for comparison.

Regards,
Keith



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.