Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:42:33 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 15:38:55, Robert Pawlak wrote: >Bob, > >Isn't multi-hydra redundant ;-) ? Sure, a multihydra is easily done. Get a >passive backplane system, and write the code :-). > >Personally speaking, I would like to see this approach succeed (I am speaking of >FPGAs in general, not just the multihydra). However, I think there are various >commercial barriers to something like this actually becoming successful. My >feeling is that this might be able to exist as a high-end niche product, and be >successful for Chessbase as a marketing tool. So they won't be able to make big >bucks on the product, but it might be a really neat marquee. Put the thing in an >external USB enclosure, with a bunch o' blinkin LEDs on it, and match some GM. > >Disclaimer: I've never written a chess engine in my life. > >I believe that people dismissing the FPGA approach out of hand are ignoring some >differences between Hydra and DB. First off, deep blue was constructed when the >hardware was relatively expensive. Now it is much cheaper. And today, there are >a number of really good development tools for VHDL. Furthermore, changing logic >is equivalent to changing code, and can be done nearly instantaneously with >VHDL. Not so with an ASIC, which requires a design change. This means that hydra >could have continuously updated firmware upgrades, downloadable over the >internet. Not so with DB. > >The military is going into FPGAs in a really big way, since they provide a >number of supportability benefits. This in turn, will drive costs down even >further. > >Is it the wave of the future? Who knows? If you should ever have to face it, don't forget to bring a burning branch. Nothing else works, if I recall correctly.
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.