Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 14:08:18 07/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2000 at 15:45:52, Chris Carson wrote: >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! :) NP. Actually, I only quoted from the abstracts, so it didn't take as much time as you might think. The IEEE web site has a very nice search engine and all of the abstracts on-line. Too bad they don't have the full articles. I know how to get these articles at school, but not at Microsoft. Presumably we have some library here that will get them for you, but I've never investigated... -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.