Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 06:18:47 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 09:03:38, Albert Silver wrote: >On August 30, 2004 at 08:30:34, Kurt Utzinger wrote: > >>On August 30, 2004 at 08:12:52, Jouni Uski wrote: >> >>>Eine FPGA-Karte untersucht momentan ca. 3 Millionen Positionen/Sekunde. 16 >>>Karten machen daher theoretisch 48 MPos/sec. (Donninger) >>> >>>Jouni >> >> If Hydra made 48 Mpos/sec this again proves (in comparison >> with the 2 Mpos/sec on Quad-Opteron server with 4 CPU's of >> Shredder) that the number of pos/sec can't be taken as a >> reliable value for the goodness of a chess program. It's >> of course simply impossible to compare apples and organes. >> Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com] > >It would be necessary to have more games played to really judge the relative >strengths of the machines (software + hardware), but supposing the gain is 40 >Elo per ply at this point (diminishing returns) and that Hydra is gaining one >ply per 3-fold speedup that would mean it is roughly 120-150 Elo stronger than >Shredder on that hardware. The biggest problem that we have is that we don't really know if Hydra on a comparable hardware is the same strenght as Shredder, therefore, to say that Hyrdra is 120-150 Elo stronger than Shredder would be the wrong assumption. Now if you take the latest Nimzo and consider that it had four upgrades in private and each upgrade equal to 40 Elo which is an increase of 160 Elo, than we can say that Nimzo (Hydra )strength is almost equal to Shredder 8 on equal hardware. Even if Hydra is a special program that run on parallel, I believe that Dr., Donninger started from his own algorithm (clone Nimzo program) and simply made several changes. Jorge
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.