Author: KarinsDad
Date: 17:19:47 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 19:49:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 19:30:09, Matt Frank wrote: >[snip] >>Btw, on another post you mentioned that Deep Blue ran on about 64000 MHZ and you >>implied that we are far from accomplishing that with PCs and therefore catching >>Kasparov with micros is a distant dream. I dare say that the present (top of the >>line software, Hiarcs 7 Fritz 5.32, etc.) software designed to run on >>contemoprary PCs is much better designed compared to Deep Blue's software fit >>to take advantage of it's computing power. After all these computer programers >>have been working for many years in ahighly competitive environment, working >>with machines that they understand very well, compared to the Deep Blue >>experiment, which utilized cutting edge parallel processing hardware running at >>enourmous sppeds with software designers not having to compete with business >>competitors. >The Deep Blue machine had 256 Chess CPU's. By the term "Chess CPU", that means >the native instructions were things like "Nxb4" >These CPU's calculated 256,000,000 NPS. About a factor of 1000 faster than the >best available current systems, give or take a factor of 4 (depending on your >budget and the kind of searching you do). > >The Budget for the Deep Blue project must have been orders of magnitude greater >than any resouces available to the best equipped PC programming team. People >have an image of IBM as some stodgy old guys standing around in black suits, but >you had better believe that they have some of the best research and development >teams in the world. Just do a web search for "IBM fellows" and you will find >some pretty impressive names. Also, the majority of the team worked on Deep Thought which led the micros for years. These guys knew what they were doing. KarinsDad > >In short, I think you have it exactly backwards. Consider also the competition >of Kasparov with an ELO of about 2800, and at his prime. The ELO scale is an >exponential one, so that means Kasparov is many, many times better than a 2500 >GM (they would only expect a scoring average of about 15% against him). > >We really don't know where the Micros are right now. They might be better than >we think. They might be worse than we think. But one thing is for sure, Deep >Blue would still be leaps and bounds ahead, were it still all in one piece.
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.