4.7 GHz IBM Power6 dual-core processor

[Spock]

Maybe this has already been posted here...

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show ... =199700456

Admittedly of little interest to us chess fans, but a good read anyway

[Karmazen & Oliver]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

[tiger]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

[Terry McCracken]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

Very Good Christophe!

[Tony Thomas]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

Christophe, it is possible that he meant that in a whole different way. I wouldnt knock on him until I ask him what he actually meant. He was probably saying that an engine doesnt have to be the fastest searcher to be the strongest but it has to search efficiently, or something similar. You have a good possibilty of being right if he wrote what he thought he wrote.

[tiger]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

Christophe, it is possible that he meant that in a whole different way. I wouldnt knock on him until I ask him what he actually meant. He was probably saying that an engine doesnt have to be the fastest searcher to be the strongest but it has to search efficiently, or something similar. You have a good possibilty of being right if he wrote what he thought he wrote.

No.

Your search can be as selective and smart as you want, performing it twice as fast will always give a significant boost in elo strength. As far as we know, something like 50 to 80 elo points.

The only exception is when you can search until you get absolutely exact evaluations at the leaves of your search tree. In other words you need to have the X-men tablebases, X being the number of pieces left on the board, or an exact evaluator for your position. If all you have is the (X-1)-men tablebase, you still need to do a significant search job (and there is no guarantee in this case that all the leaves of your search tree will get exact evaluations).

We only have tablebases for positions with at most 6 pieces. That is, we have tablebases for small minority of chess positions. In all positions with 7 pieces left or more, search speed is crucial.

Based on this, my interpretation is that chess is definitely a speed problem, no matter how cleverly you search and how much positional knowledge you put in your program.


// Christophe

[Karmazen & Oliver]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

Christophe, it is possible that he meant that in a whole different way. I wouldnt knock on him until I ask him what he actually meant. He was probably saying that an engine doesnt have to be the fastest searcher to be the strongest but it has to search efficiently, or something similar. You have a good possibilty of being right if he wrote what he thought he wrote.

No.

Your search can be as selective and smart as you want, performing it twice as fast will always give a significant boost in elo strength. As far as we know, something like 50 to 80 elo points. ( only that ?¡ )

bla ... bla ...

Based on this, my interpretation is that chess is definitely a speed problem, no matter how cleverly you search and how much positional knowledge you put in your program.

// Christophe

incorrect.

IF CHESS is a speed problem ... then ... Fritz 5.32 whit a Super - fast CPU can win a GM ¡? .. and it´s not posible NOW.

why ?

because engines need more knowledge.

TIGER was better that fritz in some versions of fritz. ? and fritz 5.32 runs MORE FAST evaluation positions...

is very EASY say NOW.. after do a lot of algorithms to CUT trees and search special CUT on some lines.

IF CHESS is a SPEED problem ? WHY now ? win Some humas to computers ?

MAYBE the speed of future CPU do a " tablebase" ends extensive.. but THAT not is chess ?... that is a "reduction to the absurd thing.
to add and to subtract "

IF CHESS is a speed problem ? why rybka HAVE 100 points UP that others engines ... ?¡ and rybka calculates less positions ?¡

.... MORE speed ? OK do that ¡¡¡ but the diferents between CPUS ... not are a lot of points ELO.

but... if you like "to add" very quick ok. I prefer to multiply. metaphor

bye.

[tiger]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

Christophe, it is possible that he meant that in a whole different way. I wouldnt knock on him until I ask him what he actually meant. He was probably saying that an engine doesnt have to be the fastest searcher to be the strongest but it has to search efficiently, or something similar. You have a good possibilty of being right if he wrote what he thought he wrote.

No.

Your search can be as selective and smart as you want, performing it twice as fast will always give a significant boost in elo strength. As far as we know, something like 50 to 80 elo points. ( only that ?¡ )

bla ... bla ...

Based on this, my interpretation is that chess is definitely a speed problem, no matter how cleverly you search and how much positional knowledge you put in your program.

// Christophe

incorrect.

IF CHESS is a speed problem ... then ... Fritz 5.32 whit a Super - fast CPU can win a GM ¡? .. and it´s not posible NOW.

why ?

because engines need more knowledge.

TIGER was better that fritz in some versions of fritz. ? and fritz 5.32 runs MORE FAST evaluation positions...

is very EASY say NOW.. after do a lot of algorithms to CUT trees and search special CUT on some lines.

IF CHESS is a SPEED problem ? WHY now ? win Some humas to computers ?

MAYBE the speed of future CPU do a " tablebase" ends extensive.. but THAT not is chess ?... that is a "reduction to the absurd thing.
to add and to subtract "

IF CHESS is a speed problem ? why rybka HAVE 100 points UP that others engines ... ?¡ and rybka calculates less positions ?¡

.... MORE speed ? OK do that ¡¡¡ but the diferents between CPUS ... not are a lot of points ELO.

but... if you like "to add" very quick ok. I prefer to multiply. metaphor

bye.

I wanted to point out that your reasoning is incoherent. There are people that may visit this forum for the first time, I cannot leave a post like yours stay uncorrected. You do not really know what you are talking about, someone has to point this out.

At chess, speed definitely matters. This issue has been debated to death, starting all over again is like going 30 years back in the past.


// Christophe

[Enrico]

it´s ver early.

and power CPU maybe need a "re - write again " some lines of CODIG program chess ---

fast ? OK maybe YES, but not is posible USE "a lot of COREs" in that speed.

We can see that "the bestest" programs of CHESS only UP 3-5 % of USE 4 CPU or ONLY 1 CPU..


CHess not is speed problem ( see hydra, or blue "machine" IBM ) ... the problem is "Know" about postiones chess...

bye.

PD: remember that some CPU AMD X2 runs more slowly that CPU intel 8xx or 9xx and in chess are better... NOW the better are CONROES and new chips of INTEL... but NOT are the best CPU for "chess"


only need "some" speed, but not a lot of speed... In tournoment BILBAO, "fritz 8" run in a portable computer ( single CORE ) and win a lot of games...

bye.

A computer chess expert is speaking here: "Chess not is speed problem".

Indeed, with a 32-men tablebase it's not a speed problem anymore.

Fishing is not a speed problem. Maybe you should try fishing instead.


// Christophe

Christophe, it is possible that he meant that in a whole different way. I wouldnt knock on him until I ask him what he actually meant. He was probably saying that an engine doesnt have to be the fastest searcher to be the strongest but it has to search efficiently, or something similar. You have a good possibilty of being right if he wrote what he thought he wrote.

No.

Your search can be as selective and smart as you want, performing it twice as fast will always give a significant boost in elo strength. As far as we know, something like 50 to 80 elo points. ( only that ?¡ )

bla ... bla ...

Based on this, my interpretation is that chess is definitely a speed problem, no matter how cleverly you search and how much positional knowledge you put in your program.

// Christophe

incorrect.

IF CHESS is a speed problem ... then ... Fritz 5.32 whit a Super - fast CPU can win a GM ¡? .. and it´s not posible NOW.

why ?

because engines need more knowledge.

TIGER was better that fritz in some versions of fritz. ? and fritz 5.32 runs MORE FAST evaluation positions...

is very EASY say NOW.. after do a lot of algorithms to CUT trees and search special CUT on some lines.

IF CHESS is a SPEED problem ? WHY now ? win Some humas to computers ?

MAYBE the speed of future CPU do a " tablebase" ends extensive.. but THAT not is chess ?... that is a "reduction to the absurd thing.
to add and to subtract "

IF CHESS is a speed problem ? why rybka HAVE 100 points UP that others engines ... ?¡ and rybka calculates less positions ?¡

.... MORE speed ? OK do that ¡¡¡ but the diferents between CPUS ... not are a lot of points ELO.

but... if you like "to add" very quick ok. I prefer to multiply. metaphor

bye.

I wanted to point out that your reasoning is incoherent. There are people that may visit this forum for the first time, I cannot leave a post like yours stay uncorrected. You do not really know what you are talking about, someone has to point this out.

At chess, speed definitely matters. This issue has been debated to death, starting all over again is like going 30 years back in the past.


// Christophe

Hello.

There may be a chance at a decent debate here, however... (If the arguments are redefined a bit...)

Since we don't have infinitely fast computer systems (or the 32-men EGTBs you speak of), we obviously can't solve chess instantly with a basic search...

Since we currently have less than impossibly fast computers, then search (read: quality and efficiency of search as well) would logically have to be a major factor.

We know what strength gain can be expected with faster systems... What we don't know is if current methodologies of search have reached the upper limits of all possible "substantial" gains?

All throughout the history of computer chess, breakthroughs (some massive and some, perhaps, not so massive) have upset the thought that exploring new search ideas have limited returns (i.e. nothing else to discover...)

Mchess and Genius are a couple of examples... You are well aware of the most recent one.

So, of course computer chess can *always* benefit from increased speed, this we've measured and know what can be expected -- but I wouldn't be so bold as to call it a "speed problem." Perhaps my descendants will have to recant this for me when "infinite" computer speed is achieved -- but I'm confident that the lineage-listing pointing back to me will be quite long...

I think there is still much to be discovered in search and we are all fools if we think that a theoretical maximum has been even close to reached...

Regards,

-elc.

[Karmazen & Oliver]

OF COURSE ¡¡¡

I´m working now... when I have more time I´m write SOME LINES about some... The LOGIC theme.

PD: the speed on CPU have near a MAX speed Ghz... but... we begin now with MULTI cores CPU... that implement A good speed for analisys... but

Some machines chess DEDICATE. IBM blue, hydra etc.. have a lot of CPUs, THIS not guaranty the WIN... but Helps ¡¡

when programerns start think that " not is posible " learn more about a positions ches... " his level " not UP... after do a lot of better programs some people think that " the limit" of programer not is posible...

while others programers ( rybka ) say that the actuality program HAVE a lot of "errors" and there are a lot OF WORK about it...

others think that "only" speed is need... ?¡ OK... maybe in "end-game" need speed to "destroyed" the interesting END games... but while time ...

CHESS not is QUEENs.