Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:25:47 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2004 at 21:19:02, Dann Corbit 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. > >Micro/Mainframe/Embedded processor are all irrelevant. It is the programming >language layer that we target. If I write a chess program in C or C++ (or >whatever) then I can run my program on any system that has a compiler for it. >You will find (for instance) that GCC targets many, many architectures. > >>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! > >Inigo replied, "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think >it means." > >>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. > >Strawmen are not as fun as the real ones. You're just being silly now. > >>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.] > >They are both seen as tools. > >>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. > >You have no idea what you are talking about. > >>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. > >Hardware solutions always include CPUs. It's a sad thing to read that. It implies that "digital design without CPUs" is not only a lost art but also completely forgotten. Maybe taboo! Maybe it's too late. I feel like a Prophet shouting in a desert with no one to listen. P.S. There surely MUST be a place here at CCC for humor. Or, is that lost too???? : ) Bob D. >That goes for Hitech, Deep Blue, Hydra, >whatever. CPU stands for "Central Processing Unit" and it is a device that runs >instructions. Pretty essential for any chess program. > >>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. > >The problem with your illustrations is that you are inside of a dark room and >you won't turn on the light switch. > >>Satan laughs!!! >> >>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.