Author: Slater Wold
Date: 13:44:07 04/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 02, 2002 at 16:21:45, Sean Mintz wrote: >well, you should read some of the responses given to your first post. there are >some good ideas that would work. I agree. And of course I read them all, I need all the help I can get. ;) >you could put evaluation in the hardware also >(although it would be a lot harder it would help a lot...). you could also do >all the work inside the hardware and then return just a little (instead of >massive amounts of bandwidth constantly being exchanged). Well, I stated that in the first post. It's just a *lot* more work. Crafty's eval will (more than likely) require a bigger FPGA, which of course, is more money, and more work. I just didn't want to start out there. However, I would rather do a little more work and get a much better result. I think! >as you quoted him, his >c wasnt that good and that may mean his program/hardware is not as optimized as >it could be...so don't lose all hope! :) Of course not! I will do SOME kind of implementation of HW with a chess program. And it *will* be playing on ICC before Christmas. I promise. ;)
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.