Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:44:18 07/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2003 at 07:30:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 26, 2003 at 17:22:02, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On July 26, 2003 at 16:25:37, O. Veli wrote: >> >>>Since it is hardware, can >>>we expect to be stronger than top software? >> >>I would expect it to be slower than top software, because cpu improvements >>happen so quickly, and FPGA programming (from what I've heard) is not a simple >>task. If he spends another two years working on it before releasing it (as >>Slater said), just imagine how much faster the cpus will be by then. > >I completely agree here. Where it is fast in 2003 thanks to parallellism it will >be very soon outdated IMHO. Note that he isn't using hashtables either in >hardware. Though way better than deep blue, move ordering still is a joke of >course. Deep Blue did it more or less at random. > >>If you're talking about something massively parallel like Deep Blue, that is one >>thing, but a single PCI card? I doubt that is going to do any better than break > >What's faster: a couple of fpga cards without hashtables, or a software program >at the 192 processor cluster that they got there? Each processor 3.0Ghz P4 or >something. > >>even with top of the line hardware, so why bother? IBM threw so much hardware at >>the problem that desktop cpu improvements wouldn't catch up for a LONG time, but > >that's bullshit of course. 1 brutus chip is massive faster than the shit IBM >had. > >Also evaluation is a lot better. Further searched db too many plies in hardware. >Also without nullmove. > >So the current chessprograms search within seconds same depth like deep blue. > >But of course milliseconds for depth of pc hardware at the time. > >You can't compare 1997 with 2003. > >I remember the many postings from hyatt at the time saying that nullmove is >dubious. Where are they now? Null-move is _still_ "dubious". Happy now? _any_ forward pruning is "dubious". Happier now? Better check out the definition of "dubious" however. > >Brutus is about a factor 10 faster in hardware than deep blue effectively. > >Deep Blue had average of 133MLN nodes a second. Note that this is dubiously >extrapolated guessed number. Even using *them* it means that in middlegame it >had horrible little nodes a second for hardware. We're talking about 30 million >or something and in endgames up to 300mln. Where do you get your numbers from? Never mind. I remember. They have a rectal origin... > >30 MLN at 480 cpu's means: 62.5k nps a cpu on average. More rectal math. The DB chips ran at a fixed clock rate. No way to change it, and no way to slow a chip down in the middle of a game. > >Note this is EXTRAPOLATED numbers. The real number of nps from deep blue was of >course A LOT lower. They just guessed something. > >But i am sure that Brutus will be a lot faster a cpu EFFECTIVE than deep blue. > >It is a shame how bad deep blue was in this respect. Perhaps when they actually _win_ a match vs Kasparov, this statement might have some merit. Until then... > >>a single PCI card doesn't seem to be worth the trouble of programming the thing, >>because desktop/server cpus will probably outperform it before too long.
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.