Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:31:41 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2000 at 06:03:19, blass uri wrote: >On January 21, 2000 at 15:51:17, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On January 21, 2000 at 14:39:18, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>On January 21, 2000 at 14:03:58, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>In his IEEE Micro article Hsu estimated his evaluation function as an equivalent >>>>to ~40,000 general purpose CPU instructions. (Or is the entire procesing of one >>>>node? In any case, that doesn't matter - all other work can be done in 0.5-2k >>>>instructions). >>> >>>So let's say you have a nice new Pentium III running at 800MHz. If one >>>instruction takes one clock cycle, that translates to 20000 NPS. >>> >>>If each instruction takes 2 clock cycles (an absolute worst-case scenario) >>>that's still 10000 NPS. >>> >>>If you have the world's best evaluation function, I think 10000 NPS should be >>>enough for a competitive program. And if it isn't, well, the DB program is >>>already parallel... >>> >>>I don't see why FHH doesn't do this. >>> >>>-Tom >> >>DB search was designed in the assumption that it's *fast*. For 20knps (or even >>for 100k) it's necessary to rewrite a lot of stuff - e.g. remove singular >>extensions, add null move (or something other based on "null-move observation"), >>etc. And in the process Hsu will find that removing slowest parts of the >>evaluation function will make the program stronger, as nps will go way up. >> >>In the end he'll end with one more PC chess program - exactly as Bob did. And >>first version of the program will be not the strongest one, as speed/knowledge >>tradeofs will differ wildely from Hsu's instincts. >> >>Eugene > >He does not have to do it because he does not have to produce the best program >at tournament time control. > >People use programs for corredpondence games so he may sell it if it is really >better in correspondence games but we need to see a proof that it is better in >correspondence games. > >If he write it and after it do 20 games against the commercial programs at 24 >hours/move(he can do some games at the same time by using more than one pentium) >and win most of them than people are going to buy it but he first need to prove >that it is better at 24 hours/move because many people believe that the >superiority of deeper blue was only because of hardware. > >Uri Your last sentence is the core issue. It is absolutely true. But don't forget that hardware included search _and_ evaluation.
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.