Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Behind Deep Blue: 3rd print with new Hsu afterword

Author: Ken Stone

Date: 07:23:59 05/07/04

Go up one level in this thread


On May 07, 2004 at 04:19:21, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On May 07, 2004 at 01:03:20, Jouni Uski wrote:
>
>>Has You looked for that afterword? There is very short comment to Kasparov
>>vs. Junior and Kramnik vs. Fritz. Hsu still claims DB was superior to
>>Fritz/Junior in tactics! Really?
>>
>>Jouni
>
>Let me quote Bruce Moreland: "i would love to have a shot at deep blue in blitz,
>i tactically will destroy it".
>
>This was with Ferret at a 4x 400Mhz PII machine.
>
>I agree with Bruce.
>
>We must be realistic. Deep Blue needed 3 minutes to get to 10 ply in openings
>positions. In endgames it finished 12 ply a lot. Most middlegame positions
>however it searched 10 - 11 ply.
>
>On average they claimed a search depth of 12.2 ply but this is not iterative
>depth but 'observed' depth. So the singular extension depth added to it (not
>qsearch i guess).
>
>10 ply with a singular extensions and threat extensions and mate extensions is
>in theory tactical very strong. Certainly for 1997 standards.
>
>However in hardware they cannot do any dangerous extension. Not only Hsu
>explicitly mentions it, also Chrilly has done very clear statements that
>hardware search is *that* inefficient that he had to forward prune in hardware
>in a very primitive way. Same for Deep Blue. In its 4 ply of hardware search it
>forward pruned, and *had* to of course. Both cannot use any dangerous extensions
>in hardware search. Deep Blue triggers the last one at 4 ply depth left.
>
>This where software products pick up incredible tactics last few plies. They see
>just near to shit last few plies.
>
>So you can extend a lot in mainsearch, but 10 ply - 4 = 6 ply. So within 6 ply,
>it should see everything then.
>
>Let's be clear, this in 2004 is not a realistic scenario. Hsu still lives in the
>80s. He did live there in 1997 still. His machine didn't even use nullmove which
>by 1995 had been clearly proven for every idiot on the planet as the way to go.
>
>Frans Morsch *publicly* did statements about recursive nullmove. During dinner
>every programmer has heard it, i'm sure of it.
>
>What Hsu writes is utter nonsense.

No, what you write is utter nonsense....Hsu knows what he's talking about, but
the so-called experts here, or at least some of them are "Out to Lunch" most of
the time.



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.