Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 08:27:46 05/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2005 at 10:42:27, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On May 30, 2005 at 07:23:24, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >>On May 30, 2005 at 06:21:14, Pallav Nawani wrote: >> >>>On May 30, 2005 at 02:02:49, Amir wrote: >>> >>>>Deep Blue could calculate 200 million moves per second. According to what I have >>>>read, Hydra calculates 40 million moves per second. How then is Hydra sees >>>>deeper or is faster than Deep Blue, as is claimed by the authors?? >>> >>>According to the logs that I saw, deep blue was searching 12 plies deep in the >>>K-DB match. My program can match that depth on a 1.1Ghz PC. This is because of >>>search techniques that were not used in deep blue. Eg: Null move, Rebel style >>>reductions, aggressive pruning. Hydra is obviously using such search techniques, >>>and given its higher processing power, it will easily outsearch Deep Blue. In >>>fact, in Shredder-Hydra match, shredder was searching to 16 ply (I think, but I >>>could be wrong) which was almost the same as Hydra (Again, not sure). >>> >>>Also, Deep Blue was using Singular Extensions, which increases the number of >>>nodes required in search. >> >>But which also reduces EBF. You should have left out this paragraph. > >SE definitely INCREASES the EBF. > >-- >GCP Generally, even bad extensions reduce the EBF. The only way I can think that could happen is if some type of redundant searching is going on. SE would have to be pretty terrible to manage an increase in EBF. Thank you for reinforcing my disinterest in SE.
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.