Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:15:49 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 00:10:01, Derek Paquette wrote: >On August 29, 2004 at 21:27:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Here is a quote from ICC: >> >>quote on=================================================== >>DIEP(C DM)(64): because they claimed having 'solved' chess and people like hyatt >>supporting that indirectly (by saying that nothing ever can get better than that >>old program) >>quote off================================================== >> >>This is _another_ case where I want to see a _specific_ quote, or a specific >>citation for an article where I made that statement (nothing can ever get better >>than DB). I've never said it. I've never implied it. In fact, I have been >>quoted more than once where I predicted that hardware would eventually take us >>well beyond DB's speed/performance. >> >>My quote was that in 1997, it would take 10+ years for a micro-computer based >>program to approach DB's speed. Today I can hit 10M nodes per second on a quad >>opteron, 20M on an 8-way. Probably approaching 40M on a 16-way box. That isn't >>as fast as DB, but it is in the ballpark. And I still have 3 more years on my >>"prediction". Next year AMD has promised a dual-core opteron, so that 16-way >>box will instantly become a 32-way box. 80M if there is no clock speed >>improvement, yet they say it will be faster via clock as well. So 2007 may be >>enough time to hit 200M roughly, if not more. >> >>But to Vincent, once again, please provide an exact quote with the source, or an >>exact citation of a paper I wrote, where I made the statement you claimed I >>made. All I claim is that you are a liar. >> >>Here's yet another case to join the JICCA paper you claimed I wrote, the CCC >>posts you claimed I made, etc. >> >>The list is growing. >> >>Your credibility is shrinking. Why don't you just adopt the policy of not using >>_my_ name with your nonsense? I don't exactly drop your name in every >>conversation I hold. You ought to do the same. You'd look a lot less ignorant. > >This actually leads to an interesting question, > >If you were able to put together a 32cpu cluster for Crafty, how do you think it >would fair vs DB at this point? I really don't know. They had chess knowledge I do not have at present. So even if I was as fast, I'm not sure I would have really good chances. And without the actual box to play against, there is no way to know anything for sure... >Also, if someone were to ask you, what is the best cpu's for crafty, would you >answer >opteron? >xeon? >Itanium? (I heard these were very good for chess) Opteron at present, by a big margin.
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.