Author: G.Mueller
Date: 06:26:56 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 00:31:49, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 28, 1999 at 23:01:31, Steven Schwartz wrote: > >>On January 28, 1999 at 20:32:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 28, 1999 at 17:27:21, Steven Schwartz wrote: >>> >>>>In our attempt to make up for lost time, >>>>we have just put up EIGHT new poll questions! >>>> >>>>Please click on the link to the "Computer Chess >>>>Resource Center" at the top or bottom of this >>>>page and place your votes. >>>> >>>>The latest SSDF results are also on the WCCR >>>>in the Resource Center. >>>> >>>>- Steve (ICD/Your Move) >>> >>> >>>The 'deep blue' question is really a bad one. The idea just doesn't make >>>a lot of sense. IE if I took a word processor, made in work on my blender, >>>would I have a better automobile would make just as much sense. >>> >>>DB is _not_ "just a fast machine that a program can run on."It _is_ a silicon >>>embodiment of what the DB guys think a chess computer ought to be. _if_ you >>>could take a commercial engine and modify it to work on their hardware, do you >>>know what you would have? Easy answer: "Deep Blue". Because you would have to >>>do things exactly as they do things. Evaluate the same things, use the same >>>kind of search, the same data structures to fit the hardware... >>> >>>ie it is a silly question... >> >>We'll add it to our list of silly questions:-)) >>Would it have been phrased better if we said,"If you took the best >>commercial program and run it at the relative speed of Deep Blue, would >>it be stronger or weaker than Deep Blue is now?"? >>- Steve (ICD/Your Move) > > >even that won't quite do... NPS is not NPS here. IE the best answer no >matter what is that you would just get 'deep blue'. Their eval is all hardware. >to run at their speed would need their hardware, or else some truly remarkable >cpu speeds. IE they do 200M nodes per sec minimum. Commercial programs are >roughly 200K nodes per sec today. That is a factor of 1,000. When you factor >in what they do in their eval in parallel, we need another factor of 10 to make >up that difference. > >_then_ we could compare. But a factor of 10,000 isn't coming for a _long_ >time, unfortunately... :( Hello Bob! For me this experiment you planed with Ed to compare, what a factor of 100 in time brings was interessting, so sad that it does not work... Best wishes G.Mueller
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.