Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 13:52:29 07/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 28, 2003 at 16:45:33, Keith Evans wrote: >On July 28, 2003 at 13:36:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>Just compare the design of the move generator of Hsu with chrilly. It is a >>*massive* difference already. > >There are other statements that you made that I could discuss, but this one >caught my eye... > >What are you talking about? What's the difference? How do you know? You seem to >be implying that Chrilly did a better job than Hsu which I don't believe. Yes massive better. Hsu has written many articles. here is a summary of what Chrilly has said in way more words (voice) when he was staying here for a few days: Hsu was one of the first to make a move generator. He didn't write it in verilog but in the direct logics of the chip. Very incompatible method. Custom made by hand. It is incredible that he managed to write at such a low level anyway. However, a bad result from writing at such a low level is that the scale and size of the logics is so big that he must have lost oversight. I write in a more compatible language called Verilog and that is not comparable to C but way closer than the very 'assembly' way in which Hsu has written his logics at. It means in short that Brutus move generator therefore is very small. Note that i MUST make it small because i am commercial and more gates is more money to pay for. In the first chip i had just 50000 gates in total and that is very very little to get a chessprogram working in. From my viewpoint all the things i have seen so far is utmost beginners level. This is logical, They are hardware designers, not chessprogrammers. I focus upon the chess programming technical result. They had so much other problems to deal with from hardware viewpoint that we can not even compare it in that sense. Best regards, Vincent
This page took 0.04 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.