Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:15:28 02/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2004 at 10:59:09, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On February 17, 2004 at 15:59:48, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On February 17, 2004 at 15:36:30, Tord Romstad wrote: >> >>>On February 17, 2004 at 15:23:57, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>Bob, please indulge a "slow learner." I still don't get it. Are you saying >>>>that the best way to get ***really*** high nps rates is with hardware [maybe >>>>such as used by Hydra?] as opposed to using a PC? >>>> >>>>Incidentally, I am really feeling ignorant right now. How did Hydra get such >>>>high nps? >>>> >>>>I hope you don't mind helping a beginner along on this confusing stuff. >>> >>>OK, I'll try: >>> >>>The CPU which sits inside your PC is, of course, not designed to >>>play chess. It does not have any intructions to evaluate chess positions, >>>generate legal moves, or any other chess-related tasks. When a chess >>>program running on a PC performs such operations, each task is translated >>>into a really big number of instructions for the CPU to execute. Executing >>>all these instructions consumes a lot of clock cycles. >>> >>>Hydra, if I have understood correctly, uses hardware which is designed >>>to play chess. It contains several processors which are built with the >>>purpose of executing chess-specific tasks quickly and efficiently. >>>Hydra's hardware probably *has* instructions for evaluating positions, >>>generating moves, and similar tasks. Therefore, the processors don't >>>have to execute nearly as many instructions for each node as the PC >>>does. As a result of this, Hydra doesn't need as many clock cycles >>>to process one node in the search tree, and this means that it can >>>achieve a really high NPS despite a low clock frequency. >>> >>>Tord >> >>That is useful. Thanks. >> >>The way it is with true beginners is that for every answer they think of ten >>more questions. Smarter people are smart enough to not show their ignorance, >>whereas the beginners, like me, don't have anything to lose. : ) >> >>I guess by now you have figured out that I have another question! : ) >> >>It seems to me that there should be some way to provide a "cost" benefit for a >>hardware feature, with the benefit measured in nps. >> >>For example, a "move generator chip" should be worth X nps. >> >>As another example, consider a "position evaluator chip." It is worth Y nps. >> >>This can go on for all the important functions performed in a chess engine. >> >>Would you care to estimate [guess at] the nps value of such chips? >> >>In this application, it would seem that a few well-designed chips might go a >>long way! >> >>Bob D. > >Please read up on computer architecture for 3 months. Once you know the basics, >I'll happily explain the rest to you, but it is tiring to go through everything >again and again. > >anthony Anthony, sometimes programmers look down their noses at hardware people like me. But if there were no hardware, programmers would be as helpless as a newborn baby. There is more that is worthy than just programming. Bob D.
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.