Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 09:23:42 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 30, 2000 at 14:43:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 30, 2000 at 14:40:12, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi: >>I understand your point, but My point is not fully anchored in the fact if >>really the new monster is 1000 times faster than DB. 1000 can be and probably is >>just a kind of metaphore to say that this new one is a lot faster than any >>other.... Even just 100 times faster is Ok for me :-) > >But it does not have IBM's chess chips. > >Imagine we replace a 747 with a space shuttle!! > >Then we take the rockets off and put piston engines on it. > >A completely different kind of motor is what we are talking about. The original >Deep Blue machine housed a giant hoard of chess CPU's. A single one of them is >faster than any chess program alternative, and they had a boatload of them. > >The Blue Gene thingy does not have any of them. It's not a chess machine at >all. And it's probably not SMP, so you could not even port crafty to it. > >In other words, it would suck at chess. Hi Dann: It seems I have not been capable of expressing me clearly. My awful english. Of course the current monster such as it is today does not even play chess. Does not even sucks. What I mean is: what IF a hardware like that, or better said, a hardware similar to that in power was someday engaged with a chess program. That's all. Or even more simple: what if the same current or decesed DB was 1000 times faster. Cheers Fernando
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.