Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 00:14:11 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 23:38:06, Peter W. Gillgasch wrote: >Ad 1: This was true for Deep Thought since the difference > between the fast and the slow eval was noticeable > due to the sequential properties introduced by > the Xylinx devices looking at the position on a > file by file basis. Since DBII is not hampered > by issues like FPGA capacities this is the first > bottleneck that was to be removed. As Dave Footland > has reported they had interesting things in their > evaluation. In the light of this and in the light > of things Hans has said it it extremely unlikely > that they ever take a "slow eval" in DB since there > is (a) probably no speed gain in doing so and (b) > things like pins and king safety can add up quite > a bit, taking a "slow eval" makes no sense in a > machine which knows that the queen is pinned and > will be lost versus a bishop or that there is a > mate in one versus your king. I'm not sure I follow this. It seems like both a fast eval and a slow eval would make sense, depending on the situation. I read somewhere that DB's fast eval took 3 cycles and the slow eval took 11 cycles. I'm not 100% sure about the 11 cycles, though. It may be 12. -Tom
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.