Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:37:16 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. > OK... I may well be off a year. I had originally thought that the first year for chiptest was 1987. After thinking, I am now pretty sure it came out in 1986. CB won the world championship that year, but we could not get machine time for a second tournament (the ACM event). I saw chiptest for the first time the next year, 1987. Not 1988. In 1988 I believe they were deep thought (I am not sure they were deep thought .02 at that point. In Hsu's book, he explained that that was _not_ a version number. It was a decimel fraction of what he thought the ultimate deep thought machine might be... and dt.02 was roughly .02 of that machine. But in any case, let's modify my math. They are now 1.6 times further ahead of you than they were in 1988, rather then 3.3... And that 1.6 was based on 1997 hardware when we know Hsu has already said that 30M nodes per sec on a single chip is doable _today_. So the gap between rebel/1988 and deep thought 1988 was closer than the gap between rebel (today) and DB2 (1997), by almost a factor of 2. So the point still stands. The gap has widened, _not_ closed... >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 I don't have an argument less. Just back the start date back up to 1987 and we are back to the same numbers. Or stop the comparison at 1997, the last change to DB, and the gap widens significantly. Note that the 720K number is not the same kind of NPS as the 200M number.
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.