Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 01:31:54 04/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 00:36:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >And it is pretty easy to interpret "early DB hardware" as either deep thought >hardware or DB1 hardware... Since the whole "line" was finally known as "deep >blue"... These are quite the semantic contortions you're going through. If you need to be right so bad, fine. >>IIRC, DB could do a fast eval of a node, which took 2 cycles, and a slow eval, >>which took 8 cycles. >Something similar, although the "fast eval" might have been incremental.. and >took no time... What do you mean, "something similar"? And "might have been"? If you have numbers to contradict the ones I posted, by all means. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you're replying. >I think it would _clearly_ be faster than software... IE DB took ten clocks >per _node_. What software program comes anywhere near that. More like >3000 instructions per node, which turns into 4-5000 clocks most likely. Right, and when your chip runs at 12MHz, 10 cycles = 833 ns = 1666 cycles = nearly 2000 instructions with a 2GHz MPU. If you want to point out flaws in the way I estimated the FPGA's performance, go for it. But you're not going to convince me of anything by saying that software can't evaluate nodes in 10 cycles. That's obvious to anybody. -Tom
This page took 0.02 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.