Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:23:48 07/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 29, 2003 at 22:37:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 29, 2003 at 20:07:32, Matthew White wrote: > >>On July 29, 2003 at 18:17:24, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On July 29, 2003 at 16:12:40, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>This is just another area where you know nothing, but write as though you are >>>>>an expert. >>>>> >>>>>BTW, Hsu's move generator is _not_ a lot better than Belle. All you have to >>>>>do is read his paper to see what he did... >>>> >>>>Of course everyone can. It is described at several papers. What Brutus has is a >>>>*lot* better i can garantuee it. >>>> >>>>Hsu didn't program in verilog or some hardware language. because of that it is >>>>amazing he managed to get stuff bugfree to work. However you can't simply >>>>compare all that university stuff with what Donninger has! >>> >>>Are you joking? >>> >>>A hand laid out board is *TONS* faster (and stable) than an auto placed & routed >>>design. They teach you that in like the 2nd class of EE. >>> >>>University stuff? Cause the knowledge from a few MiT grads working with IBM is >>>probably pre-k stuff right? Nothing close to what Chessbase can do with chips. >> >>It's the same type of opimization problem that we have with compilers... For >>certain things, you just can't beat good hand assembly... > >don't compare assembly with processor design at the lowest level. >putting logics by hand and so on yourself is no fun. > >Assembly is a very high level language compared to low level processor design. >I hope you realize that... > >>Matt It is not _that_ bad. They didn't lay out paths by hand. This has been covered before.
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.