Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:28:09 07/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2003 at 07:41:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On July 26, 2003 at 18:17:40, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On July 26, 2003 at 17:22:02, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On July 26, 2003 at 16:25:37, O. Veli wrote: >>> >>>>Since it is hardware, can >>>>we expect to be stronger than top software? >>> >>>I would expect it to be slower than top software, because cpu improvements >>>happen so quickly, and FPGA programming (from what I've heard) is not a simple >>>task. If he spends another two years working on it before releasing it (as >>>Slater said), just imagine how much faster the cpus will be by then. >>> >>>If you're talking about something massively parallel like Deep Blue, that is one >>>thing, but a single PCI card? I doubt that is going to do any better than break >>>even with top of the line hardware, so why bother? IBM threw so much hardware at >>>the problem that desktop cpu improvements wouldn't catch up for a LONG time, but >>>a single PCI card doesn't seem to be worth the trouble of programming the thing, >>>because desktop/server cpus will probably outperform it before too long. >> >>You're comparing apples and oranges here. You're deriding something because it's >>a "single PCI card" but you could put a DB chip on a single PCI card, run it at >>~25MHz, and it would search 2M NPS and possibly do quite well vs. commercial >>programs. And this is an ancient chip. FHH says that shrunk to 0.18um (not even >>90nm or 130nm) a single chip on a single PCI card would be faster than Deep Blue >>1. >> >>-Tom > >Grow up tom. Some gnuchess evaluation from 1997 is going to get butchered >massively. And I'm sure you know _exactly_ how DB's eval function worked, even though it hasn't been made public anywhere. >According to Donninger as explained publicly (but not in english) his move >generator is like a part only of the gates that DBII used. In his opinion the >design of DB chip was a joke from many perspectives. Well it doesn't exactly matter, does it? The DB chips _worked_, didn't they? >Things like searching 4 ply in hardware is *not* going to work simply because >the performance loss is too big. Because...? What's wrong with 4 ply searches in hardware? >Deep blue ordered moves near to random compared to modern software. Not even >killermoves. I would hardly call MVV/LVA random. You can have ideal move ordering and it won't do _THAT_ much better because MVV/LVA is often ideal. >Then they forward pruned in hardware. > >Forward pruning in hardware based upon 1 or 2 line pruning rules????????? > >Do i need to go on? No, you've made enough of an ass of yourself already. My point was that a single chip on a single PCI card is capable of hundreds of millions of NPS, not that DB is awesome. If you want to waste your time arguing that DB was crap because of your own uninformed opinions, do it somewhere else. -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.