Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 12:49:15 02/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2004 at 15:46:06, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 18, 2004 at 13:42:37, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 18, 2004 at 11:15:28, Bob Durrett wrote: >>[snip] >>>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. >> >>Will Rogers said it best: >>"Everyone is ignorant, only in different areas." >> >>Something like "What caused the space shuttle explosion?" Probably can't be >>answered in one sentence. Similarly, the contrasts and similarities between >>hardware and firmware and software development are intricate issues and >>difficult to explain. >> >>A lot of people are going to respond to the hype of the whole Hydra thing, which >>is fine. It *is* an interesting chess development (even if the chief developer >>is a bit of a loon). I think the real frustration is that explaining 'why the >>hype is hype' is not comprehended. >> >>Here is what we have with Hydra: >>A very interesting chess machine that could very well be the strongest chess >>playing engine that money can buy ( if you have a big enough pile of money ). >>But in a few years the investment may look foolish as the software approach will >>be faster. >> >>So, if you have a big pile of money, you want to win all the time now, and you >>are not afraid of some "early development issues" go ahead and buy a cluster of >>PC's and a load of Hydra boards. > >Let me put a more positive spin on the Hydra "thingie": > >Hydra is a "wake up call." [Is this hype?] > >Hydra shows us that there is more to "computer chess" than writing code for >general purpose machines, like the PC. Hydra is a "special purpose machine." >It is not a "general purpose machine." There is a big difference because much >of the information about general purpose machines, and their architectures, may >not be applicable at all to the special purpose machine. > >Hydra promises the future because it shows the way to produce extremely strong >"research grade" machines which can be used for chess research. [More hype?] > >I can see that a super-strong chess-playing machine might be useful even if it >might be too expensive for an ordinary individual consumer to purchase. There >are many extremely expensive and huge computers in existence today, some of >which are used for research. It's not like it hasn't been done already, except >just not for chess. Incidentally, not all of the big machines are "general >purpose" machines. > >One of the first things a programming student in College must learn is the >"architecture" of the machine he/she is to use for programming. That's why >Computer Science Departments in universities offer courses in computer >architecture. Later, when the student graduates and goes into industry [or >starts a new business] to do programming, it is again necessary to become >familiar with the hardware on which the programs will run. The programmer will >likely not be expected to create a new machine from scratch and is typically not >trained to do so. > >It is therefore very common that programmers everywhere are very familiar with >the hardware which affects them. > >Most Computer Science students are ***NOT*** trained to design hardware. The Engineering >Department in a university is preoccupied with training students in the skills >of design. Nowadays, with hardware, firmware, and software integrated in >systems, the design task is not just limited to hardware anymore. > >When we are talking about machines whose purpose is highly specialized, much or >all of the information about architectures of run-of-the-mill general purpose >computers is irrelevant. Hydra makes is an example, although the Hydra >designers still allowed themselves to be dependent on PCs.
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.