Author: Slater Wold
Date: 19:51:36 02/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2004 at 21:42:03, Keith Evans 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. > >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. And which costs more? Xilinx, interestingly.
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.