Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:52:32 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2004 at 21:48:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. That would be interesting. : ) On the other hand, maybe it's time has not yet come. In a few thousand years, digital may be out and analog be back in again. : ) > >>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. Rule for survival in a funny world: "Never take anything at face value and try to laugh a lot. It's good for the constitution." 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.