Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Could Deep Blue Have done better than D.J Using the same Primergy ?

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 19:54:08 07/11/00

Go up one level in this thread


On July 11, 2000 at 22:22:05, Jorge Pichard wrote:

>On July 11, 2000 at 22:01:13, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On July 11, 2000 at 21:17:40, Jorge Pichard wrote:
>>
>>>Graham Laight wrote that in 1997 Deep Blue did better than Deep Junior is doing
>>>now; whenever it got a significant advantage, it won against Kasparov.
>>>
>>>My answer to that comparison is that if you compare the difference in hardware
>>>between Deep Blue Super computer to the Primergy netserver, it is like
>>>comparing the Space Shuttle to a Helicopter in Speed. Deep Blue could not have
>>>done better against this type of opponents, using the same Primergy Netserver.
>>
>>The comparison is even more pure nonesense than you are relating.
>>
>>The architecture is completely different.  Deep Blue used a hardware solution.
>>Deep Junior is a software solution.  Apples and Oranges if there ever were any.
>
>I was not comparing the architecture of the hardware, what I am trying to point
>out is that given the calculating power of the two different systems, there is a
>ratio of a least 200 to 1. Therefore, the advantage of using a system which is
>capable of calculating 200 times faster, simply indicate that Deep Blue Software
>was not really superior to Deep Junior, but the advantage of its calculating
>power will make any top Commercial software rates by SSDF play like a super GM.

It's strictly a nonesense comparison.  Superiority or inferiority of the
software piece is something we will never know, either.

Imagine a CPU that has a square root instruction.
Imagine a second CPU that emulates the square root in software.

You might do things very differently when you write your programs if you know
you have a 20 cycle hardware square root instead of a 200 cycle software square
root.

There is no meaningful comparison that can be made, and "counting nodes" is
little more than pure nonesense to try to prove which one is/was better.

The hardware is completely different.
The software is completely different.
The algorithms are completely different.

One of them is no longer available.



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.