Author: Slater Wold
Date: 13:19:20 11/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2003 at 16:14:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 24, 2003 at 15:05:53, Pete Rihaczek wrote: > >>I for one am very excited to see Brutus in the lead. This is an exciting advance >>in chess computing and FPGA computing in general. With the ability to add >>knowledge without the usual penalty, some version of this is the odds-on >>favorite to be the world's strongest chess machine. Such a system was a logical >>step after Deep Blue II had shown the advantages of computing in hardware. Can a >>Kasparov-Brutus match be far away? Well done Dr. Donninger! > > >I don't think it is _that_ revolutionary. IE a single FPGA board and >computer together search about 2.5M nodes per second, according to comments >by them when we have played a few skittles games on ICC. A dual-CPU opteron >is faster than that, as a reference point. Bob, Bob, Bob... A PC can get 2.5M nps, sure. But with what program? HIARCS? A FPGA can get 2.5M nps, and then you can stuff 100,000 lines of chess knowledge in it, and still get 2.5M nps. That's a big difference. >yes, I know that he is running with four machines, two FPGA cards per machine >in Graz. But then again, 8-way opterons are around as well. I'm hardly >"anti-hardware" but the benefits to using hardware normally far-surpass >readily available general-purpose computers. IE belle did 160K when the >fastest competitor was 20K (Cray Blitz). Deep thought went to 1.5M when we >were at 200K with the fastest hardware Cray had at the time. The FPGA >approach doesn't have that significant speed advantage. IE a single card >at 2.5 M nodes per second is within reach of a single processor machine >today...
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.