Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:06:49 04/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2005 at 12:51:59, Keith Ian Price wrote: >On April 20, 2005 at 12:44:07, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On April 20, 2005 at 12:33:24, Keith Ian Price wrote: >> >>> >>>IBM recently came out with their Power-5 module: >>> >>>http://static.userland.com/weblogsCom/images/wallyswisdomwarehouseweblogscom/8XPower5MCM.jpg >>> >>>This module has 4 dual-core multi-theaded Power PCs similar to the ones used in >>>the Mac G5. That makes for a total of 16 virtual cores, and IBM has a system >>>that ties 8 of these modules together with a 4GB/s bus for a total of 128 >>>virtual cores. The other four chips in the module are 4x36MB L3 cache. Since >>>Crafty already gets about 1500 kns on a fast processor, and the mult-threading >>>on a core offers about a 15-20% speedup, Crafty would likely exceed 100,000 kns >>>on a full system, especially if the hash tables could be kept in the L3 cache. >>>First, would it be possible to run a 128-thread version of Crafty? If so, do you >>>suppose that IBM might be interested in affording you the use of one of these, >>>as a Professor of Computer Science, to have a match against the self-proclaimed >>>successor to Deep Blue? I imagine they would get some good publicity having an >>>off-the-shelf IBM computer beat the specially designed chess computer in a >>>match. What do you think? >> >> >>IBM will not want to dilute their DeepBlue marketing half-life with another >>chess project. So I doubt they would be interested in that kind of sponsorship >>publicity. So I would not expect the kind of gratis cooperation with Crafty >>that AMD has been willing to provide. > > >But, the Hydra team has been diluting it on their own Hydra is not widely known outside of esoteric circles. They have no credible machine-human events to tout, and no prospects AFAIK. >with their claims that >Hydra is the most powerful chess entity in the world. Besides, IBM did not get >much out of the match after a few months had passed. It is the number of >impressions (advertising speak) they achieved while so many tuned in to see the >match. This would gather nowhere near as much attention, but it would be a whole >lot cheaper for them. (c. $200,000 vs. $10-20 million.) IBM and DeepBlue are so synonymous in marketing terms that they won't want to tarnish that, even though it is not as fresh in people's minds as time moves on. DeepBlue is still working for IMB in terms of marketing identity. You won't see IBM do a chess project probably ever again. But other companies might.
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.