Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:01:26 07/07/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2005 at 14:51:56, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >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. It makes me wonder why they got such excellent answers, then.
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.