Author: Keith Evans
Date: 18:42:03 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. If you replaced all of the Xilinx FPGAs in Hydra with Opterons do you think that it would get weaker or stronger? I vote for stronger.
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.