Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:48:27 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2004 at 21:25:47, Bob Durrett wrote: >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! You could make an analog solution. >Maybe it's too late. I feel like a Prophet shouting in a desert with no one to >listen. I think you are making the sound of one hand clapping. Soon, there will be no ear to hear it. >P.S. There surely MUST be a place here at CCC for humor. Or, is that lost >too???? > >: ) Humerus is a bone. There is humor in the eye of the beholder. Vitreous humor.
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.