Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:29:56 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2004 at 21:32:03, Bob Durrett wrote: [snip] >Either you, Dann, or Bob Hyatt said something about whether or not a particular >block of code might be well suited to "hardware-izing." The idea is that >certain blocks of code could be easily "hardware-ized" and other blocks of code >would be hard to "hardware-ize." That's the standard approach. No hardware solution ever has been pure hardware. You also have to write software infrastructure. >Perhaps the better approach would be to break up the chess engine into >functions, and measure percentage of microprocessor time used for each function. They call that "profiling" and every chess author does it. > There would, surely, be many ways to decompose the overall "chess engine >function" into a set of sub-functions, and perhaps some innovativeness would >help to make sure most of the small functions were well suited to >"hardware-izing." Those that were not would require that the engine designer >select alternatives to get around the difficulties. All this might take some >effort. Suitablity for hardware will depend largely on the task. If it is easy to write a circuit to perform a task, then it is more suitable to create a hardware solution. >Your idea of working mainly on eliminating "bottlenecks" seems a good idea too. It's the only logical way to proceed. BTW, they have been doing that since the 1950's. >I still see the potential for enormous gains in engine strength, at least >hypothetically. The proof would be in "the pudding," of course. Only when the >hardware were built and tested would the performance gain be measured and >understood. I think that Deep Blue, Hydra and other systems have already proven the concept. We don't need to guess to know if it works or not. >Hydra may, indeed, be just a "flash in the pan," but you must admit that Hydra >winning Paderborne should have raised a few eyebrows. Someone would have to be >really insensitive to not be at least a bit pulsed. I think it is an interesting development. It's not a revolution by any stretch of the imagination. It's an old technique, revived once again. Tying a pretty blue marketing bow on top isn't new either.
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.