Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 04:46:00 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2000 at 21:50:06, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On July 20, 2000 at 15:47:53, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>On July 20, 2000 at 14:50:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On July 20, 2000 at 14:26:16, Chris Carson wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 20, 2000 at 13:03:42, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>2 years ago a single DB chip played several matches with top commercial
>>>>>programs. This DB chip was running at 1/10th of its normal speed, and yet
>>>>>it won 36 out of 40 games. This has been reported several times here on CCC,
>>>>>by several that have heard Hsu and Campbell give talks about the DB hardware.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it could win 90% of the games running at 1/10th the normal speed for one
>>>>>chip, what does 480 chips at full speed get (hint: 4,800 times faster). Would
>>>>>you think it might have a pretty easy time with today's programs? quads or
>>>>>8-way boxes as you want?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Games against P90 machines. What were the program versions? what were
>>>>the settings? Who was the operator? Which book was used? Where are
>>>>the games for inspection? Did the DB team get permission to perform
>>>>this tournament and permission to report results? Were you there?
>>>
>>>I was there. The program authors were there. That was a requirement for the
>>>ACM events. We all sat across the board from each other. Marty. Ed. Richard.
>>>Hsu. Myself. anybody else you would care to name...
>>
>>Nah.... you are talking on late 80th's Rebel running on a 5 Mhz 6502
>>processor with 32 Kb Ram Rebel doing just 500 NPS. Your point again?
>>
>>Ed
>>
>
>
>I like the math game...
>
>so lets see.. you were doing 500NPS in 1988? And today you are doing maybe
>500K? A factor of 1,000?
>
>They were doing 300K in 1988. They hit 1B in 1997. 1,000,000,000 divided by
>300,000 is how many times faster? 3,333 X faster you say?
>
>Now do you get my point? They have widened the NPS gap by a factor of 3.5
>since 1988.
>
>_that_ is my point. The gap has continually _widened_. _not_ _narrowed_...
Wrong math.
From the IBM site (1988)
"Deep Thought 0.01 becomes
Deep Thought 0.02 and
improves to 720,000 chess
positions per second. The new
program includes two
customized VLSI chess
processors.
So 720,000 and not 300,000
Your second mistake is the 1B. Where did you read that? You know very
well 200M is claimed, no quoting needed.
So 200M / 720K = not even 300 times faster.
As you say Rebel improved with a factor of 1000 (3½ times more than DB)
nota bene the exact opposite you claim.
Not that such math impresses me (as if computer chess is about hardware
only) but I do you like you the fact you have an argument less.
Ed
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.