Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:44:53 01/07/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 1998 at 02:35:51, Don Dailey wrote: >On January 06, 1998 at 18:35:32, Jay Scott wrote: > >>On January 06, 1998 at 17:30:40, Don Dailey wrote: >>>In >>>every way (except raw speed) the Deep Blue team is handicapped so you >>>can not expect them to compete with the highly tuned micro programs. > >>This is not true. The hardware has one big advantage besides >>outrageous speed: it's parallel at the transistor level. You can >>get more evaluation function terms at each node by adding >>transistors, and adding transistors does not slow you down. > > >Hi Jay, > >I consider this a speed issue too. I concede the quantity issue, >they do more things and do them all faster. > >>So a hardware chess machine has a different speed/knowledge >>tradeoff than a software chess program. Adding knowledge is >>cheap, at least until you use up your real estate, so it makes >>sense to add as much knowledge as you can. In software, adding >>knowledge almost always slows you down, so you have to be >>more careful. With as many devices as you can get on a chip >>nowadays, I imagine that its natural for chess hardware to have > >>>So does Deep Blue suck? In rating points per node searched, YES. >> >>Well, what about rating points per log nodes searched? > >All parallel programs compare poorly to serial programs by this >criteria. > I disagree here. "ALL" is far too strong. IE, if you look at the ICCA article I wrote on Cray Blitz's parallel search, it was averaging something like 75% efficiency using 16 processors... IE it produced a speedup of nearly 12X the same program on a single processor, when it was run using 16 processors. That's "pretty" close to 1. Close enough that the comparison isn't too "poor" when looking at the serial version. BTW the "serial" version had *no* compromises in it. IE no unnecesary code that was only needed for the parallel version... >>I don't think we have enough information to judge how well >>the Deep Blue team did in exploiting their potential advantage >>in knowledge. Their development time was relatively short, as >>these things go, so perhaps not well. But on the other hand >>they had plenty of talent, and they're perfectly capable of >>coming up with good new ideas. > >I agree on this too. I think they probably felt a lot of >frustration during the whole ordeal but I'm just guessing. >Beating Kasparov must have been sweet for them. > > > >- Don
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.