Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:14:58 05/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 24, 2005 at 23:47:12, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On May 24, 2005 at 20:45:48, Vincent Lejeune wrote: > >>On May 24, 2005 at 17:13:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On May 24, 2005 at 16:16:35, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>On May 24, 2005 at 14:57:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On May 24, 2005 at 14:51:01, GuyHaworth wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Channel 4 TV has a story that Michael Adams is to play HYDRA in a 6-game match, >>>>>>? in London next month. >>>>>> >>>>>>"The smart money's on the chip, which is 6x more powerful than DEEP BLUE". No >>>>>>reference to Adams tailing off badly at the Mtel event. >>>>> >>>>>Deep Blue hit one billion NPS (with full eval) peak and 200M NPS sustained. >>>>>6x that would be 1.2 Billion NPS sustained. >>>> >>>>There is contradictory information on this. Hsu was finally pinned down on the >>>>issue and it turned out that the 1 billion NPS figure is a theoretical peak. The >>>>200 million NPS figure is the practical peak with 120 million NPS the sustained >>>>figure. Of course, it is the latter figure that is most useful, but the 1 >>>>billion figure was tailor made for hyperbole. >>> >>>At 120M NPS (about 1000 times faster than Shredder on a 2.2 GHz machine) >>>Six times that would rate at 720,000,000 NPS sustained for Hydra. Certainly, >>>this would be rather impressive if it were the correct figure. >>> >>>If doubling the speed gave one more ply, it would be 12 plies deeper than what >>>my machine can perform. >>> >> >>If my memory serve me well (it's not sure ;o) ), from operator chat on playchess >>: "hydra do 400,000,000 N/S : 200 M/S in 32 CPU + 200 M/s in 32 FPGA" > >Given the estimated Deep Blue EBF of 4, that should be at least an order of >magnitude greater of what is needed to overtake Deep Blue depth-wise. There were two sorts of branching factor with Deep Blue. There was a "robust search" that pretty much exhausted a sphere around the root move, and a speculative search that went a lot deeper. I am not sure that the depth conclusion can be assumed. >>>>>>Mmm: I guess the usual discussion will start but this seems hype to me. >>>>>>However, it confirms that the 'DEEP_BLUE' is still taken as the 'SI unit' of >>>>>>computer chess. >>>>> >>>>>It's the stuff that legends are made of.
This page took 0.01 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.