Author: blass uri
Date: 14:48:16 11/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1998 at 16:46:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 09, 1998 at 13:46:58, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>I *know* I don't write that confusing. What I said was this: DT had lots >>>of *known* design weaknesses in the chess-specific hardware, from the evaluation >>>to the search itself, and yet it rolled over every program around, from the >>>micros right on up to the supercomputers, *in spite of* those substantial >>>weaknesses. The hardware was redesigned at least twice in a major way, from >>>the late "deep thought" hardware to Deep Blue I, to the chip used in the last >>>match (I'll refer to it as DB II). >> >>>I brought this up because *you* were mixing micros of today with deep thought >>>of 7-8 years ago. From experience, Cray Blitz of today still outplays any >>>micro I know of, >> >>Can you post the CB games then? >> >>Or at least give some results? > >I didn't save the game... I published them in r.g.c about 4 years ago... about >50 games vs genius at various handicaps... IE at the time, the machine I was >using was a C90 with 16 processors. My handicapping had cray blitz using one >cpu, one second per move... and I tried genius at 5 secs/move... that was an >80X handicap when you factor 5:1 plus the 15 missing cpus. You assume that the speed is linear in the number of cpus. Is it the case? This was a total >blowout. CB didn't lose a single game and most were simple tactical blowouts >that lasted less than 30 moves. (Note: genius on a 486/66 and then 486/100 >later). what is the ratio of speed between 486/100 and the latest pentium? What is the rating of this old Genius(is it in the ssdf list) I ran genius up to 30 seconds per move and it started scoring about >one of every 10-15 games. When I gave it a minute, still with cb at 1 cpu >and 1 processor, the match became more interesting... CB was still winnint >3 of every 4 or 5 games... but I didn't play many at this time control as it >was slow and cray time was not easy to get. 60*16=960 so it is at least some hundreds times better than OldGenius. Is it only because of a better hardware or also because of a better program? Uri
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.