Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:12:43 04/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2000 at 03:02:09, blass uri wrote: >On April 12, 2000 at 23:29:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 12, 2000 at 17:46:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On April 12, 2000 at 17:32:44, Derrick Williams wrote: >>> >>>>On April 12, 2000 at 16:48:15, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 12, 2000 at 16:36:09, Derrick Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I would like to simulate the expierence of playing against Deepblue. How long >>>>>>would I have to let fritz6 think per move on a pent 450 to simulate playing >>>>>>deepblue at 40/2 hrs? Should I let fritz6 think one hour per move or what? >>>>> >>>>>Does fritz6 have a 40 moves / 2000 hrs setting? >>>>>That should be about right, as far as NPS. >>>> >>>> >>>> You are exaggerating just a bit aren't you? >>> >>>No. >>>DB calculates 200M NPS, micros about 200K NPS. (roughly speaking -- might be >>>off by a factor of 2 or so for what fritz 6 can do on a PIII 450, which would >>>reduce it to 1000 hours instead of 2000). >>> >>>DB was one heck of a machine. >> >> >>Yes.... and it could peak at 1B nodes per second, with 200M being the typical >>lower bound... 480 chess processors at 2 to 2.4M nodes per second each... > >480 chess processors at 2 to 2.4M nodes can be the same as 200M with one >processor if you consider loss of speed from parallel search. > >Uri Parallel search doesn't lose speed. It just searches extra nodes. But the NPS value goes up fairly linearly. Try crafty on a quad xeon using 1cpu, 2cpus, etc. At 4 cpus the NPS is pretty much 4x. But roughly 25% of the search space is redundant... I haven't seen anyone adjust the NPS to reflect search efficiency, since it is impossible to determine exactly how many nodes are 'extra overhead'...
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.