Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:38:49 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2000 at 10:20:58, Chris Carson wrote: >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 And the DT/DB program didn't improve? Have you read the JICCA paper on their search extensions? It is probably the _standard_ reference for search extensions and null-move testing. What says that their software didn't improve? a desire to paint them in the worst possible light???
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.