Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 19:20:13 06/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
Dr. Hyatt, Yes I know that DB beat Kasparov but it wasn't an overwhelming defeat. DB did have a sore fist after Mr. Kasparov's face attacked it. 3.5 to 2.5 in favor of DB is pretty damned close. I think that Kasparov was punished a little more than DB however. I can say with 100% certainty that I would have attacked DB's fist even more ferociously with my face and gotten a perfect losing score of 6-0. Tim Frohlick On June 08, 2001 at 15:26:24, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 08, 2001 at 02:19:30, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: > >>Mr. Burcham, >> >>Good idea but Ed Schroder did this with his Rebel programs about one year ago. >>It would certainly give a hint at the playing strength on faster machines. This >>sort of testing would be tedious but informative. Don't get too scientific on >>us K. >> >> >>I think that with increasing depth the return on investment diminishes. Just >>consider how Kasparov punished Deep Blue. DB was doing a whale of a lot more >>computations than a puny 4000 Mhz AMD processor. Knowledge is the key. We need >>faster machines in order to access the enormous databases of rules and >>exceptions to the rule. >> >>Tim Frohlick > >Kasparov didn't "punish" deep blue. Unless you mean he beat the hell out of >DB's fist using his face. :) > > > >> >>On June 07, 2001 at 21:11:15, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>maybe the 4 gig amd processors will be out in two years, maybe even next year. >>>so i was wondering how accurate it would be to test this now. >>> >>>lets say we know that tiger can average 400 kns with a 1500 mhz amd. >>>so lets set the clock to four minutes per move. >>>this will convert to 96,000,000 nodes in four minutes. >>>this is with permanent brain off. >>> >>>lets say we estimate the 4000 mhz processor to get about 1100 kns with >>>tiger. this will convert to 264,000,000 nodes in four minutes. >>> >>>so the idea is to see what the 4 gig will do against the 1.5 gig, if we had the >>>timer set to four minutes per move, permanent brain off. >>> >>>so based on the above figures we could take two seperate 1.5 gig pcs, >>>play tiger against tiger with all settings equal, except for time control. >>> >>>on 1500 mhz computer #1 we will set the time per move to 4 minutes. >>> >>>on 1500 mhz computer #2 we will set the time per move to 11 minutes. >>> >>>now we have 1500 mhz computer #1 getting 96,000,000 nodes per move. >>> >>>now we have 1500 mhz computer #2 getting 264,000,000 nodes per move. >>> >>> >>>this type of test opens up several questions for me. >>> >>> >>>please dont tell me how the next generation of processors will be 500 megagig >>>current pulses traveling in the water of a desktop fishbowl. >>>and how our ram will hang from the ceiling in huge grids. >>> >>>please dont tell me how the software changes every six monthes. >>>please dont tell me how the hardware changes every three monthes. >>> >>> >>>the above discribed test is based on the hardware as we view it by todays >>>standards. >>> >>> >>> >>>please comment. >>> >>>thanks
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.