Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:41:00 05/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 28, 2000 at 12:35:35, Mark Schreiber wrote: >On May 28, 2000 at 11:45:08, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On May 28, 2000 at 08:47:38, James T. Walker wrote: >> >>>On May 27, 2000 at 15:27:51, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>>On May 27, 2000 at 14:13:31, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 27, 2000 at 13:31:47, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On May 26, 2000 at 22:02:57, William Bryant wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On May 26, 2000 at 13:10:33, Albert Silver wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/061931.htm >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Albert Silver >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In reading the hype of this article, it is quite clear just how much IBM won >>>>>>>when Deep Blue beat Kasparov. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>William >>>>>>>wbryant@ix.netcom.com >>>>>> >>>>>>No kidding. For the next ten years the speed of every computer they release >>>>>>will be express in integer multiples of Deep Blue. >>>>>> >>>>>>And the wire services will continue to pick up their produce announcements, >>>>>>because they perceive that the public is interested in Deep Blue. They would >>>>>>not be interested in the dry technical details that would comprise these >>>>>>announcements if Deep Blue hadn't existed. >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>>The question is not what the public is interested in but what very rich people >>>>>are interested. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Not quite. The people who hold the money are rarely those who will be using the >>>>machine, so that when convincing them to loosen the strings to their purse (now >>>>there's an antiquated metaphor!), analogies they can appreciate, such as factors >>>>of DB (this computer is 550 times the speed of Deep Blue), are important and do >>>>weigh in. Professors and researchers are very rarely the ones who sign the >>>>checks after all. >>>> >>>> Albert Silver >>>Hello Albert, >>>You are already exagerating it's speed. By next month this thing will be faster >>>than the speed of light. :) >>> >>>Here is the quote from the article: >>> >>>"Before the win by Deep Blue -- the Finnish computer will be 150 times faster >>>than the chess-playing machine -- IBM was No. 3 in a ranking of 500 >>>supercomputer installations worldwide." >>>Jim Walker >>> >> >>:-) I wasn't trying to be accurate and was merely trying to make a point. >> >> Albert Silver >> >I do not trust what is written in this article. There is an obvious blunder. It >says, ?Before the advent of supercomputers in the early 1990s, . . .? The advent >of supercomputers was not the early 1990s. Supercomputers existed in the 1970s. > Mark Schreiber The headache here is that the definition of "supercomputer" has changed a lot over the last 30 years. Today, most of the top-500 list are cluster machines, with the IBM SPs right in there at the top. Yet none of those machines can really hold a candle to a 10 year old C90 for typical huge matrix mathematical modelling programs. It is way harder to get one of these clusters up to a monster performance number than it was for an old Cray. So the term has changed... As has the marketplace... Although Cray is still selling the things... >>>> >>>> >>>>>I believe that the buyers of their super computer will not buy it because of the >>>>>deep blue information but because they find that the super computer can help >>>>>them in other subjects and the knowledge that deeper blue won kasparov in chess >>>>>gives no information if the machine can help them for their needs. >>>>> >>>>>The number of calculation per second is clearly more relevant. >>>>> >>>>>Uri
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.