Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:38:29 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2004 at 20:28:41, Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz wrote: >On February 19, 2004 at 20:03:29, Bob Durrett wrote: > >> >>Microprocessors are lovable little creatures which are ADORED by all >>programmers, both male and female, because they are so easy [ : ) ] to program. >>[That, in fact, is part of the problem.] There is even a new breed of digital >>engineers who have wrapped their entire careers around the little cuties. Many >>programmers owe their very professional existence to microprocessors. >> >>It's all an evil deception intended to make programmers and engineers alike go >>astray. >> >>When microprocessors first became widely available, about thirty years ago, they >>hit the technical world like an atom bomb. People jumped on the microprocessor >>bandwagon like they were the best thing since sex and now some even worship >>microprocessors! The new programmers, scientists, and engineers just coming out >>of college think that microprocessors [and EPROMS] have been around forever, >>since before creation, and that it is a SIN to design anything which does not >>contain at least one microprocessor. >> >>It is the speed and sequential nature of microprocessors which is both their >>strength and their weakness, depending on the application. >> >>A chess programmer sees a microprocessor as being a gift from Heaven, along with >>the alpha/beta algorithm. [Shannon is seen as being a Saint.] >> >>If a chess engine were functionally decomposed into simple functional elements >>and if it were decided to provide hardware to perform those simple functions, >>then you can be sure that the modern designer would, without hesitation, reach >>for a microprocessor. Why? Because "That's the way things are done." Each >>functional element would have it's own dedicated microprocessor. >> >>Suppose the overall function of a chess engine were accomplished, mainly, by >>performing the various functions sequentially, one after the other. Suppose >>also that each function is performed by hardware elements each containing a >>microprocessor. What would happen? Since the functions would be performed one >>after the other [i.e. sequentially] and since each individual simple function >>would be performed by the sequential process within the microprocessor for that >>simple functional element, then the net result would be no faster or better than >>doing the entire chess engine function on a single microprocessor. To make this >>completely evident, note that I am postulating that only one microprocessor is >>working at any given time and that after one finishes the next starts. >> >>It should be evident that trying to create a hardware version of a chess engine >>should involve few if any microprocessors. Only those tasks which cannot >>possibly be performed non-sequentially should have a microprocessor. If more >>than one microprocessor must be used, then a way should be found for them to run >>in parallel. Better would be no microprocessors at all. >> >>The problem is that hardware designers skilled in digital design without the use >>of microprocessors is a breed of cat which may have long since become extinct. >> >>Satan laughs!!! >> >>Bob D. > >Interesting. > >I don't know about the rest of the people here, but I've studied two years of >philosophy, and a few more on maths, physics and a bit of computing. I still >remember myself programming computers with a few Kbytes and less than 1 KHz; and >I'm sure several people will remember much better than me. >I quite like Philosophy, and I'm against full-blind-technology_is_the_best as a >principle. Computing is a growing branch, still to be properly defined and >delimited. In this respect, computer chess is still a vage attempt of >generalizing by extrapolating extensive attempts of playing optimizing tweaking >(this must sound quite bad, actually). Your engine can do "better" in some >"smart" position, but if statistically performs worse against many engines, so >it's not worth giving it the "knowledge" to win a statistically unlikely >positions. > >Don't you find here enough to expand your philosophical insights? >I Quite enjoy thinking about your proposals, but as a programmer, I find your >claims quite pointless. >Designing a good chess engine is more than a challenge: It's a puzzle!!! Any >answer can be a good one. > >Regards, > > Jaime As long as you acknowledge [and remember forever] the truth of the common saying "There's more than one way to skin a cat" then I'll be happy. There's also something to be said for that other recent "flash in the pan" idea which was "expanding one's paradigm." If one is "locked in" to the microprocessor way of doing things, then one's paradigm is like a small box. : ) 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.