Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:27:05 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2000 at 15:24:04, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On July 25, 2000 at 06:23:51, Ralf Elvsén wrote: > >>On July 25, 2000 at 05:05:44, blass uri wrote: >> >>>> >>>>Alvaro >>> >>>Your calculation is wrong because of diminishing return from speed. >>> >>>Uri >> >>Right or wrong belongs to pure mathematics. Here we need an estimation >>of the uncertainty. If a result is in the right neighbourhood >>it's usable. >> >>Ralf > >I am going to modify my "I am wrong" assessment. DBJ was making 750,000 nodes >per search, and CT 375,000 nodes per search, but DBJ was using only 1 second and >CT 22 secs per search. This difference compensates the weak CPU being used by >CT. I hence believe that this is equivalent to DBJ against CT (under a powerful >P3) if both were using the same time per search (DBJ using equal time >compensates the P3-Pentium 150Mhz difference). Then the full DB, at 200Mnps >rather than 750Knps would be about 560 Elo higher than CT on a modern machine, >assuming that diminishing returns don't affect comp-comp matches, something, on >the other hand, that has never been proven wrong. > >Alvaro I don't want to go deeper into the argument, but I can offer better numbers. WebDB was supposedly using one chip according to Hsu. Which would probably be one of the later chips at 2.4M nodes per second. At 1/4 of a second for downloading eval terms, that leaves .75 * 2.4M = 1.8M nodes per second. He said other things were intentionally broken (no repetition as it had to be stateless to work on the web) and many extensions were 'effectively' turned off as they don't enable them for very quick searches for whatever reason... But I'd definitely go with 1.8M nodes per second as an upper bound, 1.5M as a lower bound (assuming a 20mhz chess chip).
This page took 0.01 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.