Computer Chess Club Archives

Search

Messages

Subject: Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>>

Author: José Carlos

Date: 03:39:38 10/04/02

Go up one level in this thread

On October 04, 2002 at 06:23:12, Terry Ripple wrote:

>This is quite an interesting statement from the Fritz team!
>
>  Friedel(Fritz operator) explained that while Deep Blue searched 200 million
>positions per second compared to Deep Fritz's 3-4 million, much of Deep Blue's
>parallel searching was wasted as many of its dozens of chips were looking at the
>same thing. "Another important difference is that Deep Fritz is a commercial
>product while Deep Blue was running on a supercomputer and 15 million dollars
>were invested by IBM in the project. But Fritz is definitely not weaker than
>Deep Blue," he concluded.
>
>Regards,
>      Terry

  Surprising.
  I would expect from Fritz team something like: "Deep Blue was great. Fritz is
much slower and thus much weaker, and our parallel search is poorly implemented.
If Kramnik loses that'll be pathetic". :)

  José C.

• Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> Uri Blass 03:53:03 10/04/02
  • Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> José Carlos 04:00:04 10/04/02
  • Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> Gian-Carlo Pascutto 03:55:44 10/04/02
    • Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> Vincent Diepeveen 08:08:05 10/04/02
    • Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> Shep 05:18:19 10/04/02
      • Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> Uri Blass 06:37:34 10/04/02
        • Re: Much of Deep Blue's parallel searching was wasted >>> Vincent Diepeveen 08:09:16 10/04/02

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.