Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 21:02:20 07/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 11, 2000 at 22:54:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. It is obvious that most chess softwares have different algorithms unless it is a clone. As far as the hardware differences, nodes per seconds is not pure nonsense. Now here is the final logical conclusion, is you take Chess Junior 5.0 and install it inside of a Pentium III 850 Mhz which of course it will produce a bigger count of nodes per second, than if you install the latest version of Fritz 6a inside of a Pentium II 450 Mhz, you will expect Junior to win a least 60% of the games. PS: In my previous example the softwares and the hardwares were differents, but the difference in speed made a big difference. Pichard.
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.