Author: Chris Carson
Date: 12:45:52 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 15:40:50, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >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. Thanks. You have done a pretty good job of researching this, I think you have quoted from several different IEEE sources. Nice job of doing a literature search. This took you some time and I for one appreciate the effort! :) Best Regards, Chris Carson > >-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.