Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:17:17 07/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 2005 at 00:21:38, Madhavan wrote: >On July 03, 2005 at 10:12:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On July 03, 2005 at 08:18:48, Amir wrote: >> >>>On July 03, 2005 at 07:21:55, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>> >>>>By the way, my own experiments at supercomputers indicated that 16 cpu's is most >>>>easy to get a good speedup from, relative seen. 32 cpu's it is a lot hardware, >>>>but putting 32 cpu's to work is real easy. Yet the extra speedup you get from >>>>moving from 16 to 32 cpu's is not so big. Not only speedup gets bigger, also the >>>>worst case speedup still is utmost tiny. >>> >>>Actually, with 16 CPUs they were saying Hydra does 40 million nps .. so the >>>juump was really big if now they are doing 220 million nps >> >>hydra machine has new fpga cards which are more than 2 times powerful and >>Chrilly has been fighting long to get a node faster. > >What would be the purpose of getting node faster?Does it mean the software >searches deeper depths?Is Hydra perfectly programmed,was there no flaw in its >search? > >Does Hydra get more speed search than Deep Blue of 1997? Deep Blue searched 10-12 ply as you can see in logfile. Hydra searches on average 2 times deeper. The purpose of more nodes per second is mostly in the simple imagination of the mankind, who is not technical strong enough to realize that plies and nodes per second isn't the most important thing, but yes Hydra gets far more nps than Deep Blue too. An optimistic estimation from Deep Blue team was they searched on average 130 million nodes per second. So even the current hydra machine is far stronger in all respects.
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.