Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:13:18 10/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2000 at 21:08:06, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 19, 2000 at 16:51:49, Albert Silver wrote: > >>On October 18, 2000 at 09:56:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 18, 2000 at 05:44:36, Andrew Williams wrote: >>> >>>>My apologies if this is old news. >>>> >>>>There was an account called DeepBlueJr watching Kramnik-Kasparov, game 6 >>>>on ICC last night. The finger notes said the owner was Murray Campbell >>>>(a couple of the admins stated that it was indeed DeepBlueJr). I asked >>>>him what exactly he was using and he said that it was a 24-processor >>>>version attached to a R/6000. He said the processors were the same ones >>>>that ran in the Deeper Blue that beat Kasparov. I asked him what NPS he >>>>was getting and he said "looks like 28M" (!). I also asked him what sorts >>>>of depths it was searching, but he didn't answer. Another thing he didn't >>>>answer was my suggestion that he join CCT2 :-) >>>> >>>>The program wasn't kibitzing automatically like crafty does, but he was >>>>occasionally cutting and pasting the analysis into channel 211. This was >>>>around the time that Kramnik was on top, before the win seemed to slip >>>>away from him. >>>> >>>>Andrew >>>> >>>>PS Just in case anyone was wondering, I asked him if he minded my reporting >>>>this conversation here and he was quite happy for me to do so. >>> >>> >>>I was surprised, too. But I did chat with him a good bit and am convinced that >>>it was Murray. I will try to bug him a bit about CCT2, but I have a suspicion >>>that IBM won't allow public exhibitions like that... >> >>Really.... Wow. When he posted that, I was convinced some joker had set up the >>pseudo as a prank. (Sorry about that Andrew) >> >>Did you ask him about the tuning? Have they done any work on refining the eval >>or is it unchanged from the time of the match? 28 million NPS... Wonder how much >>that cuts in to the depths compared to its bigger brother. >> >> Albert > > >I didn't understand the 28M number, but my screen was so danged busy scrolling >all the nerdy comments from the 1000 people observing the game, that I didn't >get a chance to ask him. 24 processors at >= 2M nodes per second per processor >should be 48M. I assumed he typoed when he said 28M. > >It (DB Jr) was a holy terror against GMs in the many exhibitions they played >prior to the final DB match. This machine would be less than 10x slower than >the real machine. I would think it would be a handful for anybody. 24 processors? Hmm... 16? Dave
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.