Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:24:43 02/18/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 11:46:12, Aaron Gordon wrote: >Actually you can hit 1M nps in Crafty on a regular old AMD Thunderbird at >1.65GHz. That means you'd need ~330GHz to hit 200mnps. Of course if you were to >run a system such as this (say, 256 cpu's) in a cluster then you'd lose a heck >of a lot of NPS. Also lets say we used Myrinet and TTL_Papers and 'total' gained >a speedup of 128 x one cpu with 256 cpu's. I'm not sure how realistic that >number is but it 'seems' alright if you consider using an experienced cluster >designer along with good code. This will of course put you at 128mnps using the >1.65GHz tbirds. By the time you get something like this built there will be 2GHz >AMD Thoroughbred cpu's (0.13 micron AthlonXP's). Figure speedup = 1 + (N-1)*.7 for reasonable numbers of processors. I don't know that that will hold for N very large, say 128. Also, even if a CPU could run at 330ghz, we need a memory breakthrough or else it won't be 330 times faster than a 1ghz cpu today. > >If you figure 1 * 2 / 1.65 then that 2GHz XP would put you at 1.21212~Mnps. That >x 128 = 155.15Mnps. While not as fast as Deep Blue I think most of todays >programs should outplay Deep Blue with a little tuning (like cutting back on the >selectivity/pruning a bit). In the case of CT14 & Fritz7 actually running at >this sort of nps then most definately it will exceed Deep Blue strength. Perhaps >even around 50-80mnps. There is a _huge_ difference between what Deep Blue "knew" and what the two programs you mention "know". And knowledge is important against strong human players... > >Crafty at ~155mnps should be very close Deep Blue also. If anyone tried to >compare Crafty with 1M nps at 2500 ELO they're nuts. I've seen people doing this >for years now in ELO lists (perhaps as a baseline). I've seen people using old >crafty's on slow hardware & rate it 2500.. later on they get faster hardware & a >newer, stronger crafty.. guess what? 2500. Now we've got 1GHz+ cpu's and Crafty >18.13 destroy's 16.19 for example... yet guess what? Still 2500. I don't think >so. At 1M nps 18.13 must be at the very least 2600. From what Hyatt says Deep >Thought was ~2650 at 2M nps. If you consider a 50-60 increase with Crafty going >from 1M to 2M nps thats 2650-2660 right there. You are extrapolating based on comp vs comp. That is not a reasonable way to try to figure out how a program will do vs _humans_. The parameters are way different. > >Aside from the math this is my opinion. I would love to hear any replies on >this matter, suggestions perhaps, etc. > > >On February 17, 2002 at 23:07:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>11. also if you say 10 is true, could you just speculate on what mhz it would >>>take using the type of processors we are used to today(amd and intel)(not sun or >>>alpha), to be able to play on the Deep Blue level? >> >>I really can't say. For example, 2.0 ghz is enough to get Crafty to 1M >>nps or so. Therefore, assuming everything scales linearly (memory speed >>and so forth) then 400ghz would get me to that 200M nodes per second. That >>is a _long_ way off. If it actually happens >>>read. >>>kburcham
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.