Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:53:49 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 11:49:19, Jason Williamson wrote: >On May 08, 2001 at 21:36:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 08, 2001 at 14:46:45, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On May 08, 2001 at 12:18:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On May 08, 2001 at 09:34:06, Chris Carson wrote: >>>> >>>>>Any info or links on this? Does IBM have any plans to play >>>>>chess with this thing? >>>>> >>>>>Best Regards, >>>>>Chris Carson >>>> >>>> >>>>You are missing the point. The SP hardware is _one part_ of the entire >>>>Deep Blue machine. The chess processors are by far the most important part, >>>>and they have nothing to do with the underlying hardware. It is not clear >>>>how well such a machine would perform at chess since everything is so >>>>distributed yet a chess engine needs everything "close by"... >>> >>>This is true Dr. Hyatt. Nevertheless, if you could set up crafty on 1,000,000 >>>processors at 1 GFLOP per processor I would suspect Deeper Blue and it's, >>>"Chess Processors" would succumb to all that power!;) >>> >>>Terry McCracken >> >> >>The "IF" is very big. that many processors would have a serious latency >>problem and would be message-based. Crafty won't fly on that kind of >>architecture at present. > >What ever happened to that distrubuted crafty you were working on? two things. I am working on a UPC version for a 64-node alpha machine. I am working on a PhD student proposal for a student that wants to look at the issue himself for a possible dissertation. If he decides to do this, I would rather him do it and get credit for it for his PhD. But it will be done, one way or another..
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.