Author: blass uri
Date: 23:52:33 07/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 22:24:57, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 20, 2000 at 22:02:57, Chris Carson wrote: > >>. > > >Nope. Please read again. I _clearly_ said it peaked at 1B nodes per second. > >The math is trivial: 480 chess processors, 1/2 at 2M nodes per second, >the other half at 2.4M nodes per second. When you multiply that out, you >get 1B+ nodes per second. Hsu figured that he _averaged_ 70% utilization >for the processors. Down to 700M nodes per second. He then took 30% of >that as his dissertation says that his parallel search efficiency was 30% >for that many processors. IE a _honest_ 200M+ on average, while he was >_really_ searching at 700M nodes per second but 70% of the nodes are search >overhead. > >Deep Junior doesn't report search overhead. I will safely assume his is no >better than mine, which means about 1/4 of his nodes are wasted on average, >with peaks way above (and below) that number. I decided not to post opinions about the strength of deeper blue because we cannot check facts about it and I will not convince you about it. I will post in this subject only when I think that the facts that can be checked are wrong. In this case the effective nps of Deep Junior is 2.4M*3/4=1.8M 1000/2.4 is clearly bigger than 200/1.8 I also do not know if the 2.4M is not effective nps. My Junior5.9 on pII450 does often 300Knodes per seconds. If Deep Junior is not significantly slower in nodes per second then I expect pIII700*8 to be significantly more than 8 times faster in not effective nps. 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.