Author: Matthew White
Date: 14:56:25 01/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2003 at 17:46:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 23, 2003 at 16:45:23, Gerd Isenberg wrote: > >>On January 22, 2003 at 16:28:47, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2003 at 12:57:40, Frank Phillips wrote: >>> >>>>I stumbled across a couple of interesting games by something called Suturb >>>>against Crafty on ICC. >>>> >>>>There is no hardware information in its finger notes, but it seemed to be >>>>outsearching Crafty (on dual 2.6GHz Xeon I guess), by a 1 or 2 ply at times. >>>> >>>>Is this the gate array chess processor thing from chessbase. >>>> >>>>Frank >>> >>> >>>Yes. It was "brutus". It seemed to be doing about 1 ply deeper sometimes, >>>about the >>>same others. They claim it searches about 2.8M nodes per second in the >>>hardware, so >>>about 3M overall is the max, which is not a lot faster than my dual. The only >>>thing is >>>it uses a "Kure" book so it generally starts in a favorable position as I >>>normally run on >>>ICC with my "wide" book to provide variety. I would not play the same openings >>>in >>>(say) cct6 should I play them. :) But then again, I wouldn't play the openings >>>I played >>>against it against any reasonable opponent, so there you go. ;) >> >>Hi Bob, >> >>this FPGA-monster is able to do a rather sophisticated eval in parallel, so i >>guess the "quality" of the nodes is rather huge. IMHO Chrilly's Brutus or other >>FPGA-approaches will dominate the scene during the next years, considering that >>FPGA hardware has much more potential for further improvement than general >>purpose processors. More speed and more knowledge. And of course one may use >>multiple FPGAs in some parallel framework - puh. >> >>Gerd > >I'm not sure it will really be able to dominate. For example there are already >some hardware >platforms that are faster overall. For example, a quad 2ghz box. My dual 2.8 >was about as >fast as Brutus in raw NPS, at least within reason as I was doing about 2.5M and >they claim >3M. I ran on a quad 2000 a month back that did just over 4M, and it won't be >long before >the quad 2.8's are out. > >yes, they can "go parallel". But the problem with any FPGA solution, is exactly >the same >as with the belle and deep thought/blue solutions. Hardware advancements are a >pain to take >advantage of, while for software solutions, we just have to wait for faster >hardware and we are >ready. > >So, I guess I am not going to fear these things any more than I feared Belle in >1980, or >HighTech in 1985, or deep thought in 1988. They will be tough, but far from >invincible. >Thank goodness. :) My knowledge of FPGA's is limited, but isn't their advantage that the logic isn't "burned" in like in the other solutions? FPGA's advance in speed similar to CPU's, don't they? Matt
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.