Author: Alvaro Polo
Date: 23:45:14 07/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 17:29:34, Ed Schröder wrote: >On July 25, 2000 at 16:54:39, Alvaro Polo wrote: > >>On July 25, 2000 at 15:51:30, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On July 25, 2000 at 14:39:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 25, 2000 at 11:15:45, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 25, 2000 at 10:44:20, Chris Carson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 25, 2000 at 10:19:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 25, 2000 at 08:44:57, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>- the "1 million nodes/sec" figure is a peak figure, not an average >>>>>>>> - average is 200k nodes/sec >>>>>>> >>>>>>>From the IBM site (may 1997): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Deep Blue was now capable of examining and >>>>>>> evaluating an average of 100 >>>>>>> million chess positions per >>>>>>> second." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks Ed! Accurate and factual as always. :) >>>>> >>>>>Somewhere else the 200M is mentioned (as a peak?). The text also mentions >>>>>DB doing some pre-processor stuff (I think). >>>> >>>>This is all scrambled. Here are the right numbers: >>>> >>>>single chip: 2M or 2.4M nodes per second. >>>> >>>>DB2 (1997 Kasparov match): >>>> >>>>480 chess chips, half at 2M, half at 2.4M nodes per second. 1B nodes per >>>>second peak, 700M nodes per second actually searched, roughly 70% of those >>>>nodes are often referred to as "search overhead" reducing the effective NPS >>>>for DB2 to 200M. DB1 (1996 Kasparov match) searched 100M effective nodes per >>>>second... >>>> >>>>Those are straight from Hsu, so I feel pretty sure they are right... The others >>>>are smeared across a time line that contains DB1 _and_ DB2... Where DB2 was >>>>2x faster + move eval. >>> >>>The IBM pages say 256 processors and not 480. How come that Hsu's >>>informations don't correlate with IBM's all the time? >>> >>>And now we have a new item. It was not 200M nodes but suddenly it is >>>1000M nodes said by Hsu. Again it contradicts the IBM pages you know. >>> >>>Maybe you should not use the name of Hsu so much speaking on his behalf. >>> >>> >> >>I worked for IBM as a scientist at the IBM Scientific Center in Madrid. I would >>very much more trust Hsu's number than "official IBM" numbers. PR's and >>marketers at IBM are not stupid people (my father was a country general manager >>there), they are on the contrary very intelligent, but they don't care that much >>about scientific exactness in documents directed to the general public. They >>probably wouldn't understand very well, for example, why the difference between >>256 and 480 processors is significant. >> >>Alvaro > >With all respect to your opinion I believe that P/R people very well >understand the value of numbers. If they don't they would do a very >poor job which I find hard to believe. > >Ed They understand the numbers, but they don't care the same about scientific exactness if they are published in a web site for the general public and if they are published in, for example, "IBM Proceedings" (this one is serious). Alvaro > > >>>>>Quote: >>>>> >>>>> "Deep Blue uses "live" software that can actually generate up >>>>> to 200,000,000 positions per second when searching for >>>>> the optimum move. The software begins this process by >>>>> taking a strategic look at the board. It then computes >>>>> everything it knows about the current position, integrates >>>>> the chess information pre-programmed by the development >>>>> team, and then generates a multitude of new possible >>>>> arrangements. From these, it then chooses its best possible >>>>> next move." >>>>> >>>>>Ed >>>>> >>>> >>>>Sounds like something written for the general public, by someone that didn't >>>>have any idea of how a computer plays chess in general. IE someone in a P/R >>>>department writing about something he "thinks" he understands. The words sound >>>>good. The paragraph is nearly meaningless.. >>> >>>"Sounds like..." >>> >>>"The paragraph is nearly meaningless......" >>> >>>"IBM P/R people are stupid......" >>> >>>Be careful, IBM might sue you one day :) >>> >>>Ed >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>>Chris Carson >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - you will have to verify for yourself if that figure is for one chip or more >>>>>>>>- whether db uses forward pruning or not is obviously not clear >>>>>>>> - bob says it doesn't >>>>>>>> - article i read implies it does >>>>>>>> - db logs also imply it according to ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Dave
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.