Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 11:37:19 07/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2005 at 14:14:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On July 07, 2005 at 13:56:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 07, 2005 at 05:05:50, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On July 05, 2005 at 14:37:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>The logfile does not consider the depth on-chip at the leaves. About 6 plies >>>>more. So consider it really to be 16-18 plies. >>> >>>This is quite simply completely wrong, and contradicts what Hsu and Campbell >>>published. >>> >>>http://sjeng.org/ftp/deepblue.pdf >> >>I read the paper. I was referring to this: >>"This typically results in 4- or 5-ply searches plus quiescence in middlegame >>positions and somewhat deeper searches in endgames." >> >>I did not see the contradiction. Can you please point it out ot me? > >The first number in the logs is the combined depth (excluding quiescence, but >nobody counts that). The nominal depth was around 12 ply for the combined >search, not 16-18. Then it represents the estimated maximum combined depth (last column of table 2)?
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.