Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:21:01 08/10/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 10, 2001 at 16:37:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 10, 2001 at 14:37:50, Les Fernandez wrote: > >>On August 10, 2001 at 12:47:01, Shep wrote: >> >>>On August 10, 2001 at 08:03:37, Les Fernandez wrote: >>>>Strictly from a speed point of view the above computer is approxiamtely 50,000 >>>>times faster then the hardware that was used in the Deeper Blue hardware! >>> >>>Sorry Les, but this is utterly wrong. >>> >>>Deeper Blue had a speed of 200 - 1,000 million _nodes_per_second_ in chess. >>>This is something completely different from saying it had 0.2 - 1 billion >>>instructions per second. >>> >>>Your calculation would be right if "node" == "instruction", but no computer (not >>>even a highly specialized one as DB) can examine one node in one instruction. >>> >>>--- >>>Shep >> >>Yes Shep you are correct, my statement would only be true if node=intruction. >>While we are on the subject how many instructions was Deeper Blue's hardware >>able to do? Just curious. >> >>Thx >> >>Les > >Oh well see it as this: if you equip all those SP processors with >hardware deep blue processors it would be of course > >#processors SP / 32 times faster. > >so for 3200 at once usuable processors it would be for nodes a second >faster: 3200 / 32 = 100 times. > >However that's in nodes a second. Not in practical speedup. > >With a branching factor of 10.0 or something which DB had, that would >be 2 ply extra or so. DB didn't have a branching factor of 10 or so. It was less than 4 in most cases. Just look at the log files. I did and posted the results here a year or so ago. <4 was not bad at all. Not as good as null-move programs, but not bad...
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.