Author: Amir Ban
Date: 08:55:18 11/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 1998 at 10:34:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 20, 1998 at 23:25:37, James Robertson wrote: > >> >>Deep blue was searching 250,000,000 nps right? Would it take roughly 160 seconds >>(40,000,000,000 / 250,000,000) for Deep Blue to search the same number of nodes? >> You have to divide the Deep Blue NPS by some factor due to the unavoidable loss when doing parallel search. This factor depends on the number of processors and the efficiency of the algorithm. I think we can safely assume a factor of 5, at least. > >just don't overlook the *huge* difference in the "shape" of the trees. The >tree by dark thought is basically shallow and wide, when compared to deep >blue. Because at this point Dark Thought has searched 20 plies, about >*double" the depth of Deep Blue... Yet apparently DB went far deeper along >the critical lines (seems singular extensions and other things they do work >very well here)... > It's true that Deep Blue did brute force (no forward pruning like null move), but you expect a 20-ply null-move search to find what an (incomplete) 11-ply full-width search supposedly found. One way to compare DB to other search engines is to consider the following: DB gets fail-high on Qb6 after 1 sec., and this resolves after 5 sec. Amir
This page took 0.03 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.