Author: Jay Urbanski
Date: 20:11:44 04/10/03
Go up one level in this thread
>I could produce a commercial multiprocessor version of Chess Tiger some day, but >I still see no interest to do it at this time. Dont' say *NO* interest if you mean no commercial interest (as opposed to no interest on your part). *I* am interested, and I would buy an SMP version of Tiger. :) Given the number of requests on here I would say I'm not alone. >I don't even see an interest in the foreseeable future. I don't believe in >multiprocessing as a major trend. I have to strongly disagree here. If you look at the *server* market you will find that SMP systems dominate. All but the lowest of the low-end servers on the market are at least dual capable. Dual-processor systems are the sweet spot of the Intel-compatible market. I could make the case pretty strongly that when you are discussing chess engines, you are really talking about *servers* even though most people run them on desktop machines. If you accept as your goal having the strongest possible chess-playing machine, then you need to go SMP. If you are going to enter a chess-playing system into a GM-level tournament then you want to do it using the fastest hardware available, and that implies SMP. >I could even add that I don't believe in 64 bits computing either. For me the >future of computing in the next years is putting 32 bits single processor >computers everywhere (including your watch and your coffee machine). It all depends on what you are doing. For many applications right now, 32-bit is adequate. But the average amount of memory installed on even desktop systems is quickly approaching the 4GB limit. Remember that with a 32-bit OS you don't even get the full 4GB of address space for applications because that must be shared with the kernel. I predict AMD Opteron will make 64-bit desktops common by 2004 and that Intel will be forced to reply with Yamhill. For the server market there are plenty of applications that need 64-bit today (and yesterday) >I agree that a multiprocessor version would be significantly stronger, but on >the other hand I have many other high priority tasks that would benefit to a lot >more people, and for me it's important. > >Example of such tasks: >* Chess Tiger 16 >* A Linux version of Chess Tiger >* A native ARM version of Chess Tiger for Palm >* ...and a few more projects that I prefer to keep secret > >So I'm very sorry to tell you that you should not hold your breath... This is of course up to you. Of course whenever these man-vs-machine matches are held you can rest assured that Tiger won't be holding up the machine part of the battle because it can't run on the fastest hardware out there.
This page took 0.01 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.