Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:22:53 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 09:55:14, blass uri wrote: >On July 27, 2000 at 09:00:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: ><snipped> >>>Chess Tiger was computing in average 375,000 nodes each time it had to play a >>>move. >>> >> >>DB _only_ looked at 1.5M moves _total_ for each move it played. I thought >>you were searching much longer. > >Tiger searched for more time but did not search more moves because it used slow >pentium and no permanent brain. > ><snipped> >>Yes.. but didn't you use more than 1 second? It only used 3/4 second of >>computation for each move it played. I thought you were using 30 seconds >>or some such? > >Tiger on slow pentium cannot see 375000 nodes in a second. > >The 1.5M vs 375,000 advantage is after considering the fact that deep blue >Junior used 3/4 second and tiger used more time. > >I also read that deep blue Junior used more time when it failed low so the 3/4 >second for each move may be wrong. > >Uri I believe the machine ws a 150mhz pentium? Crafty used to do 35K+ on a P5/133, and tiger is faster, although I don't know by how much. I think he said he used 30 seconds per move? that would be in the same ballpark as the number of nodes the WebDB machine could search in 3/4 second, roughly... That I don't know about (the more time on fail low) particularly when it is very hard to determine that the program did fail low. IE I doubt it showed _any_ analysis locally... Lag probably caused more delays than fail lows did...
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.