Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 20:44:32 05/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2001 at 23:24:24, Steve Maughan wrote:
>Chris,
>
>>I didn't realize Palms are so slow, according to these figures a Palm IIIx,
>>overclocked at 26 mhz, is about 670 times slower than an Athlon 1 ghz.
>>Obviously evaluation functions are different but I believe that my mid eighties
>>Novag Constellation runs at approx 1,000 NPS on a 2mhz 6502 processor.
>>Of course this means that your program must be very good to give a strong game
>>on such a slow machine.
>
>
>I'm not 100% sure but I don't think the 2 MHz 6502 could ever reach 1000 nps.
>Maybe Ed could verify this as he produced quite a few programs for this
>processor. If it did then it would be super dump. As I remember the slow 6502s
>could do 100 - 300 nps.
I guess it would be possible to reach higher numbers, but with almost no
evaluation at all. :)
In 1981 the Spracklen claimed to reach 1000 nps on a 4MHz 6502, and I really
wonder how much knowledge they had stuffed in their Sargon II/III programs.
Certainly not much.
Christophe
> The Z80 at 4 Mhz would do about the same. It was a big
>jump when the 68000, like the Palm's, came in and the nodes 'hit' 1000 nps. But
>these machines were *nowhere* near as knowledge rich as the latest programs.
>Richard Lang's were the most intelligent assembler optimised programs but still
>not as knowledge rich as something like Chess Tiger.
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.