Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 12:40:50 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 15:32:24, Chris Carson wrote: >On July 27, 2000 at 15:22:27, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On July 27, 2000 at 15:01:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 27, 2000 at 14:41:20, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>> >>>>On July 27, 2000 at 14:14:11, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>> >>>>>Tom, next time please read the available papers before jumping into discussion. >>>> >>>>I believe Bob about the 480 processors, esp. b/c Andrew just posted the relevant >>>>information from Hsu's paper. >>>> >>>>The reason I jumped into this discussion is because Hyatt got aggressive with >>>>Chris when Chris called 1B NPS into question. That behavior is not appropriate. >>>> >>>>-Tom >>> >>> >>>I got aggressive when someone tells me I am making up numbers, even though I >>>give them a pointer to a journal article that contains the actual data I was >>>quoting. And _MY_ behavior is not appropriate? >> >>I've only seen you say "read Hsu's IEEE article." No date, no page number, no >>paragraph number, no line number. No direct quote, either. People should not be >>expected to do this kind of research for you. The fact that you like to see >>people do research on their own is not appropriate. This is a discussion forum, >>not one of your classes. >> >>-Tom > >Albet Silver posted a notice about the IEEE article. I asked him which >IEEE article and that I would read it when I had some time. Bob started >quoting the IEEE article after that. Check the threads. It did happen >very close together, so Bob may have posted first, but I did not see it, >I saw the post from Albert. Albert e-mailed me the article and I thanked >him. > >One thing is for sure, Bob did not quote the article when this debate >started and wated a long time before posting. Article at best confirmed >480 chips. So what? > >Also, there are descrepancies between IEEE articles as Tom and Ed have >pointed out. > >The bottom line is DB averaged 200M NPS and that was a guess because >no test was ever done on the DB system to get a number (acording to Bob), >thus the 200M NPS may or may not be correct, it is a SWAG and proves >nothing about the DB vs Micor debate. It was a red hearing. From another (non-Hsu) IEEE abstract: "Now it has the ability to calculate 50 to 100 billion moves within three minutes." (Deeper Blue) That puts the number between 277M and 555M NPS. I think this range is probably accurate, because it should be easy to count the positions you search per move, and this seems like something they might have done. -Tom
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.