Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:10:10 04/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 2004 at 16:47:57, Tord Romstad wrote: >On April 14, 2004 at 13:44:54, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 14, 2004 at 10:38:52, martin fierz wrote: >> >>>but you can't say that it's a coincidence! SSDF tests what 99% of all users >>>have. and that IMO is the right thing to do. a commercial programmer simply >>>can't emphasize multiprocessing to a big extent, because the time spent on that >>>is "wasted" in a commercial sense. >> >>How then do you explain: >> >>deep fritz >>deep shredder >>deep junior >>deep sjeng >> >>for starters. There are more SMP commercial engines than there are non-SMP >>commercial engines... > >I am not so sure about that. Are there any commercial SMP engines except >those you mention above? I could easily mention much more than four >commercial engines which do not yet have SMP support. \ OK let's hit the "biggies"... Fritz? Yes Junior? Yes Shredder? Yes Chessmaster? No Rebel? No Tiger? No does that hit the "big players"? 50-50... > >And even though several commercial SMP engines exist, I doubt that their >authors have spent anywhere near as much effort on parallel code as you >have done. How well do you think they scale beyond 2 or 4 processors? No idea... > >>Also care to make a bet about +5 years from now as to whether your statement >>will be true? AMD and Intel will only be selling chips with 2 (or 4) cpus on >>the single chip by then. Intel is _almost_ doing it now with SMT. AMD has >>already announced their intent that the next CPU will have two processor cores >>on a single chip. >> >>All the non-SMP guys will then be struggling to catch up... >> >>Those that look ahead architecturally will already "be there". > >But everybody don't have the same goals and interests for the future as >you. To me, chess programming on desktop computers is beggining to get >less interesting already today, because those computers are already so >damn fast. It is no longer a very difficult task to create a PC program >which beats 99.99% of all chess players. Further improvement has mainly >academic interest, except for a tiny group of elite players. > >I consider it a much more interesting challenge to make an engine that >plays well even on small handheld computers and mobile phones. Not only >is it more difficult to make a good engine with limited memory and a slow >processor, handheld devices are also a much more pleasant platform for >playing chess. > >Tord That's a great goal, no doubt. But then there is always the person wanting to create the "best there is". And that will always be on a "big box".
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.