Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 22:06:47 09/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2002 at 15:43:49, martin fierz wrote: >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 It's surprising, but Jonathan told me that the SGI chips sucked for checkers compared to say today's AMD Athlons (I mean clock for clock, he got a lot less out of the SGI chips... and I'm not sure exactly why that was). Also there is the parallelization issue that you mentioned. Regarding how far the 10-piece databases have been computed, I don't know if that is a secret or not. You could always email him and ask. :-) He doesn't have them all yet, but he does have enough that he's fixing up code to use them, so it must be a decent chunk of them. Dave
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.