Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:48:21 12/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 2003 at 16:12:41, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 27, 2003 at 20:45:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 27, 2003 at 19:00:30, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On December 27, 2003 at 14:05:23, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On December 27, 2003 at 12:36:32, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 27, 2003 at 09:04:05, Sune Fischer wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On December 27, 2003 at 04:58:51, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>4) Even with a 1:10 or 1:8 advantage crafty only barely manages to catch up or >>>>>>>beat these top order programs - so not much of a chance if they show up with the >>>>>>>above mentioned machines. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe you are jumping to conclusions with "not much of a chance.." :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Crafty seems to be more than just barely holding on, it seems to be winning >>>>>>these matches at 8-10x speed advantage. >>>>>>That would mean Crafty still has chances even with "only" a 4x speed advantage. >>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not saying it would be a favorite but it's enough of a lottery to say that >>>>>>there are chances, and who knows what kind of hardware Bob could get his hands >>>>>>on ;) >>>>>> >>>>>>-S. >>>>>>>Mridul >>>>> >>>>>True - a good opening line which is favourale to crafty - and it could win even >>>>>with a 1 : 2 disadvantage :) >>>>>But it should be a good line - and this is like a jackpot - we cant count on >>>>>this ;) >>>>>On a even position - with lots of possibilities (not one of those dead drawn >>>>>boring opening lines) - it would be tougher. >>>>>If 1:8 just barely helps - then 1:4 is going to be a real challenge - also note >>>>>- it is going to be lower than 1:4 - not even 1:4 >>>>> >>>>>Mridul >>>> >>>>That's wrong. Pick your current box. I can _certainly_ find something that >>>>will be 4x faster than any box that showed up at the WCCC this year. And that >>>>is the reference point for this "test"... "would crafty be competitive." >>> >>>If they knew you'd show up they would also have got different hardware. :-D >>> >>>Sargon >> >> >>It's not quite that easy. A couple had the fastest thing available from Intel >>SMP already... Going to something non-Intel is non-trivial... > >No, no one had the fastest thing intel has. > >Don't spit such idiotic crap here. > >A trivial machine from intel that's very fast and also used by NASA is a >256 processor INTEL altix3000 from of course SGI. You need to (in order) (1) learn to read; (2) learn to comprehend what you read; (3) learn to reason; (4) get a grip; We are (were) talking about commercial chess programs and most amateur chess programs. They do _not_ run on exotic hardware. The best example would be deep fritz, or deep shredder, or deep junior. Exactly _what_ hardware did they run on? Again, nobody gives a hoot what _you_ ran on, it simply doesn't matter until you become competitive, if you ever do. Until then, the conversation was about those that _are_ competitive, and they did run on the fastest "normal" machines that Intel produces. Note that Intel does _not_ produce tha altix box. They simply sell CPUs to SGI. There _is_ a difference. Intel _does_ produce 4 and 8-way boxes based on xeons however. And no, I am not talking about Itaniums either as the commercial programs don't run on those either. So get in the coversation, keep up with what is going on, or stay away. > >In Netherlands we have a 416 processor altix3700, biggest partition at the >moment is 64 processors (means you can use 60 processors in theory 62). > >The supercluster partition is 256 processors which might get single image too. > >There is however also way bigger intel machines, but non shared memory. And, of course, _not_ made by intel and sold commercially... > >there are also 32 processor IBM machines with itanium2 processors from intel. "IBM". Didn't I _specifically_ mention Intel machines, particularly those that DF/DJ/DS might _actually_ be able to use? > >there is also the superdome from HP with intel itanium2 processors and a great >spec compiler. > >When speaking about shared bus, there is excellent 8 processor intel machines to >just name one. > >all that is of course faster than 4 processor quad xeon. > >But i expect for the world champs 2004 that several will show up with faster >hardware than quad xeon. I wouldn't be surprised. But _we_ were talking about WCCC 2003, _not_ WCCC 2004. That was your "change the subject" not mine.
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.