Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Test your program

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 07:41:01 05/05/01

Go up one level in this thread


On May 05, 2001 at 08:33:42, Uri Blass wrote:

>On May 04, 2001 at 21:51:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>On May 04, 2001 at 17:57:36, Jesper Antonsson wrote:
>>
>>>On May 04, 2001 at 14:48:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>My 60M figure is "peak".  To compare that to DB you have to use 1000M nodes
>>>>per second.  It would _still_ be a long way away.
>>>
>>>Well, what I remember is that they reported around 400M nodes peak and 200M
>>>nodes average. Anyway, a factor of 4-16 is not something I consider very much,
>>>it isn't more than two to six years of Moores Law. :-) However, it is still an
>>>open question how good DB was at evaluation. Those guys were smart and could
>>>throw silicon at the eval terms, so it's possible that they had significantly
>>>better eval than state-of-the-art chess software of today. On the other hand,
>>>it's possible they didn't.
>>
>>
>>If you do the math:  480 chess processors, 1/2 at 20mhz, 1/2 at 24mhz, you
>>get an average of 22mhz, which at 10 clocks per node means an average of 2.2M
>>nodes per second per processor.  Times 480 and you get 1 billion.  Peak of
>>course, but it _could_ reach that peak.  Hsu claimed his search was about 20%
>>efficient which would take that to roughly 200M...
>>
>>On a 64 cpu alpha it is _possible_ that Crafty might exceed 60M nodes per
>>second.  But in reality it would be searching like a 40M node per second
>>sequential processor due to the .3 efficiency loss for each processor.
>>
>>Still, it would be _very_ fast.  Just not as fast as deep blue by quite a
>>ways...  And then there is the evaluation problem.  I _know_ I don't do in my
>>eval what they did in theirs as I would probably be another factor of 3-5 slower
>>if I did...
>
>I still guess that your evaluation is better because you had many years to tune
>your evaluation and they did not.
>
>Uri


I might agree with "it is better tuned".  But DB did a lot of things I can't do
due to efficiency...  So I am pretty sure that overall DB's eval would be much
better...



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.