Author: Chris Carson
Date: 07:20:58 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 07:46:00, Ed Schröder wrote: >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 Ed, Besides the impressive speed up that you point out, I would also point out that Rebel improved at least as much from the SW side. You get a lot out of the HW you target for. :) Best Regards, Chris Carson
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.