Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 21:10:04 07/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 2000 at 00:02:20, Jorge Pichard wrote: >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 80486 50 Mhz II, you will expect Junior to win a least >75% of the games. >If I was to compare Deep Blue speed than I would have to compare it to an earlier 80486 to make the ratio 200 to 1. >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.