Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Schach 3.0

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 04:18:08 04/08/02

Go up one level in this thread


On April 06, 2002 at 22:09:03, Robert Hyatt wrote:

Please ask the old Schach team how many instructions a node
they needed. They are closer to 500 than they are to 1000.
Schach was the fastest software program when the 486 was
standard. It is a completely 16 bits program so runs slow at
todays hardware. well 'slow' is relative here...

At a P5-133Mhz it gets a quarter of a million nodes a second or so...

>On April 06, 2002 at 00:53:39, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>
>>On April 05, 2002 at 14:46:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>Seems pretty obvious that "early deep blue hardware" meant something other
>>>than "deep blue hardware"...
>>
>>Yeah, except you said "original," not "early." Do you consider Chiptest
>>"original DB hardware"? Because I don't.
>
>I certainly consider "deep thought" to be "original deep blue hardware".
>
>As does most everyone, since that is where it _started_...
>
>>
>>>There _is_ no "precise number".  There were three complete revisions of the
>>>chess processor.  I haven't seen anything that said all three had the same
>>>number of cycles in each operation or that they didn't...
>>
>>So in other words, you don't know the numbers (because if you did, you would
>>know whether or not they were the same). So your information-free replies
>>continue to mistify me.
>>
>>>I think you pointed out the flaw yourself.  2000 instructions at 2ghz is not
>>>_nearly_ enough to do a node.  And a 12mhz FPGA is a very slow FPGA.  100mhz
>>>is more like it for SOTA...  I'll take on that 2ghz general-purpose CPU any
>>>time you want...
>>
>>First, my own program would search more than 1M NPS on a 2GHz chip. Which means
>>fewer than 2k cycles per node. Which means ~2k instructions per node, and
>>possibly less. Which means that not only are 2k instructions "nearly" enough to
>>do a node, they ARE enough to do a node.
>
>I believe I said a "real chess program"...  I don't know of any "real" engines
>that search 2K instructions per node...  I'm also talking about _real_ nodes...
>Just to be clear...
>
>
>
>>
>>Second, what the hell are you talking about with regard to FPGA speeds? "A 12MHz
>>FPGA is a very slow FPGA"? It's easy to come up with some logic that would run
>>at less than 1MHz on the fastest FPGA ever. Your apparent notion that FPGA clock
>>speed is somehow independent of the design that's loaded into the FPGA speaks
>>volumes about your ignorance of what an FPGA actually is.
>>
>>-Tom
>
>
>If that is as _fast_ as the specific FPGA you want to use can be clocked,
>then _yes_ it is "very slow".
>
>Nothing more to say...  There are parts available for a year or more that
>run over 75mhz...  A FPGA certainly has a max clock speed regardless of _what_
>is "loaded into it".  This clock speed might be significantly lower due to the
>thing being "loaded" of course.  But there _is_ a max no matter what is loaded,
>and _that_ is the raw speed number I was referencing..  Everything has a max
>due to various things from gate delays to whatever you want..



This page took 0.07 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.