Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:06:18 07/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 23, 2002 at 04:18:46, Bo Persson wrote: >On July 23, 2002 at 00:32:44, K. Burcham wrote: > >> >> >>Some say that Deep Blue could analyze 200,000kns in some positions. >> > >This is more the *average* speed of the system. I have seen figures of up to 1 >billion nodes per second, in favourable (for speed) positions. I have a paper written by Hsu and Campbell that says their peak speed during the 1997 match was 360M for a single move. Of course, the machine was capable of bursts to 1 billion nodes per second, which I am sure it hit at times since that only required that all 480 chess procesors be busy at the same instant. > >This doesn't say, of course, what the search speed would have been in your test >position. Could have been 150M nodes/s, could have been 950M nodes/s... > > >The comparison of speed is also somewhat flawed by the fact that Deep Blue was >explicitly designed to be fast (as in nodes per second), which most of the other >programs are not. I don't agree with that. DB was a two-fold design: (1) fast, due to special- purpose hardware (2) good, due to adding whatever they though necessary into the hardware. Software programs don't have the option (2) available to them, so to keep option (1) viable, they compromise. DB didn't have to. > >This is somewhat like comparing Intel and AMD, where the P4 *is* designed to >have a high clock rate, even if it means doing less work per clock. > > >Bo Persson >bop2@telia.com
This page took 0.01 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.