Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 12:15:11 10/20/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2000 at 09:33:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 20, 2000 at 00:13:18, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>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 > > >He definitely said 24. Of course he might have meant 16. 24 caught my eye >as that would be three 'modules' of DB hardware. No reason why it couldn't >be right now, as the workstation he was using might be faster than the one >they had when they were touring the world with DB Jr. And a faster host would >need more chess processors to maintain the right "balance". I didn't realize you were quoting him; I had just been musing. Murray will be giving a talk here (at the U of A) sometime this month or next, but unfortunately he won't be here for long, so it's likely to be an in-and-out affair. 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.