Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 16:56:34 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2004 at 19:54:34, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 17, 2004 at 19:50:59, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On February 17, 2004 at 18:43:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On February 17, 2004 at 18:14:28, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>On February 17, 2004 at 17:47:56, Slater Wold wrote: >>>> >>>>>About $50,000 and 2 years. >>>> >>>>It might be worth it! think marketing! >>> >>>In two years, the 20M NPS that crafty can now do in software will be 80M NPS. >>>In two more years, the 80M NPS will be 320M NPS (faster than Deep Blue). >>>In two more years, the 320M NPS will be 1.3B NPS (absurdly fast). >>> >>>How would anyone ever get their money back? >>> >>>Keep in mind that Dr. Hyatt's program (which smashed all comers in the last >>>CCT-6 contest) was not present at Paderborn in all its resplendent glory. >>> >>>With an 8-way box running at full tilt, I expect that the sofware crafty is >>>already more than a match for Hydra. >> >>I disagree with none of the above. >> >>But think about this: >> >>Someone here recently said that there are two thousand lines of code in the >>source code for Crafty's position evaluation. Admittedly, all two thousand >>lines would not have to be executed [after compilation] but nevertheless, it's >>easy to imagine that it would take quite a few clock cycles for this code to >>produce an "evaluation." >> >>I do not know what percentage of the processor's time is used for position >>evaluation, but for the sake of discussion, let's say it's 50%. >> >>Replacing that code with hardware which would produce the desire outputs in a >>few clock cycles would essentially halve the amount of time required to achieve >>some prechosen depth of search. [Same depth, half the time.] >> >>Now suppose another block of code were identified which accounted for 50% or the >>clock cycles [assuming the evaluation hardware is being used.] Then having that >>block of code "hardware-ized" too would produce a factor of four improvement. >>[Same depth, one fourth the time.] >> >>We have two to the nth. If there are nine such blocks reduced to fast hardware, >>then we have two to the ninth or 512. That means it takes only one 512th the >>time to achieve the same depth. >> >>If most of the code were replaced with fast hardware, the amount of time >>required to reach a predetermined depth might approach zero. This means that >>the "hardware-ized" Crafty would be enormously powerful. It might take a very >>long time for the speed improvement in PCs to catch up and don't forget that as >>PC hardware gets faster, the hardware in the "hardware-ized" Crafty may be >>getting faster AT THE SAME RATE! >> >>The more I write the more I'm convinced that this experiment should be >>performed. Incidentally, $50,000 is probably far too little for research. > >If you do a profile of crafty, it is very even handed. >If you remove a bottleneck, the next routine will be the bottleneck. > >I think 50K is way, way underpriced, unless it is only move generation and some >rudimentary evaluation terms. > >To transform all of crafty would surely be several million dollars. Yes, I agree. That's why the State of Alabama should pick up the tab! : ) Bob D.
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.