Author: Gian-Carlo Pascutto
Date: 11:51:56 07/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2005 at 14:37:19, Dann Corbit wrote: >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)? No, that's another matter. Maximum depth is rather meaningless. Look at Page 5, 1)b) for the statement that the nominal depth is 12 ply on average. It's been a while since I read it but basically something like 12 (5) meant 12 - 5 = 7 ply software, 5 ply hardware, and then extensions and quiescene search. -- GCP
This page took 0.01 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.