Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:32:12 12/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2003 at 06:39:22, Peter Berger wrote: >On December 22, 2003 at 22:59:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>To go back to the discussion that started this: it looks as if Crafty on 10 >>>times faster hardware is indeed very competitive with a top commercial engine, >>>but not necessarily the overwhelming favourite. >> >>That was my original point in response to Omid's rather crass "if they >>thought they had any chance of winning, they would have come..." statement. >> >>And the main point is that I probably would not have been "just" 10X >>faster. :) >> > >Interesting. I think this was not challenged in discussion partly because there >was no clear idea how much faster Crafty would have to be. > >Let's say you had planned to show up with 10X faster hardware with Crafty at >WCCC2003. > >This is what Junior used there: >http://www.chess.at/turniere/turniere2003/chess003/video/int2.wmv > >Intel 4* 2.8 GHz > >What would you have got for Crafty? > >Peter Several _possible_ machines. One here in Alabama, 64-way Itanium. Another was a 64-way alpha. Another choice was a 16-way opteron. I really didn't investigate what I might use, because if you read the rules, they _really_ want the author present, else it gets even _more_ expensive to enter which is silly. There were other possibilities for machines, but it is pointless to start bugging people about "what if" to see if a machine might be usable, when I really was not considering going due to the length of the event.. The 16-way opteron is probably the slowest of the above machines, and it would ring in at 32M+ nodes per second, up to 44M+ in endgames, based on the 8-11M nps I saw on the 4-way box I played with for a while on ICC.
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.