Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 19:03:11 05/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 22, 1999 at 00:25:52, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>I'm not really assuming anything at all, because search loss is _not_
>constant. It is easily possible (and 100% probable) that many searches
>with N processors run N times faster than with 1. I see this regularly.
>Yes, there are cases where it is less. But in terms of NPS, they 'delivered'
>what they said. Because when I quote NPS figures for Crafty (as does everyone
>with a parallel search) I give "raw nps" numbers. Because 'effective nps' is
>impossible to calculate.
Well if you insist on using "raw nps", then they were predicting 3
billion positions per second (3 million per chip times 1000 chips) and only
achieved 1 billion (5 years late). So they did not deliver what they said in
the 1990 Scientific American article.
James B. Shearer
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.