Author: martin fierz
Date: 12:43:49 09/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2002 at 01:30:27, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 14:25:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On September 16, 2002 at 03:45:03, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>oh - too bad! i'd have been interested - i'm sure chinook would have solved this >>>faster than my engine, but i'd have liked to know how much faster. i've found a >>>problem in my evaluation which hurts in this particular position - i'll have to >>>try and fix it. thx for trying anyway! >>> >>>aloha >>> martin >> >>I will ask again when it is done. The code is being upgraded to allow the use >>of the 10-piece tablebases. (Not all of them are generated yet, but it can use >>the partial set that has been computed.) >> >>Dave > >Oh, one more thing, Martin. I asked about the processing power of the SGI >machine that was used in 1994-95. Jonathan told me that he got about 100K >nodes/second, and we (back-of-the-envelope :-) figured that the ballpark >Intel-based PC equivalent to that hardware is about a Pentium (I) 150 MHz. So I >underestimated with single-double digit megahertz, but Pentium III 1 GHz is way >off the mark too. > >Dave did i say 8x150MHz? my memory :-( here's something from the chinook website: "In the Challenge, Schaeffer had found a first-class vehicle for his driver. With its sixteen CPU's, each of which can perform 150 million instructions per second, Chinook would be able to consider, in a single minute, 12 million possible directions in which the game might evolve." so according to that it's 200kN/s. i have no idea what kind of processors were in that challenge, and what kind of speed a single one of those had. here's something about a pentium I: "Byte magazine (May 1993) noted that the Pentium had a MIPS (million instructions per second) rating of 112 at 60 MHz or 1.85 MIPS/MHz. This compares very favorably (about 2-1/3x time higher!) with the 0.8 MIPS/MHz rating of the earlier 486DX, although we must keep in mind that MIPS is not an accurate pedictor of real world CPU performance." MIPS is not a good indicator, but the challenge would have had 16x150 MIPS = 2400 MIPS, which, according to that pentium tech talk above, would be equivalent to a 1.28GHz P1. if i throw in a factor of 2 for MIPS inaccuracy, i still get 600MHz. of course, that's only the "processing power", which in a 16CPU environment gets hurt by parallelization... aloha martin
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.