Author: Kim Hvarre
Date: 19:47:44 01/29/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 29, 1999 at 22:15:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 29, 1999 at 13:42:56, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On January 29, 1999 at 10:27:58, Peter Fendrich wrote: >> >>>On January 29, 1999 at 09:51:36, William H Rogers wrote: >>> >> >>Why? The Deep Blue software was written in the first place, why can you not port >>all of the ideas (if not the identical code) from the current PC software? >> > >Simple.. the DB 'chips' are _hardware_. they do an alpha/beta search, they >evaluate positions, and they are 'cast in stone' so that they are going to >search the same tree and evaluate the same positions the same way no matter >what. > >As I said before, move a micro to DB, you end up with deep blue and _nothing_ >else... Because the micro program has to do everything like the hardware >dictates, has to use the hardware evaluation, etc... Hmmm... and once You have Deep Thought it'll be just like the successors; Deep Blue, Deeper Blue and what ever. Once You have decided what to "hardwire" on Your dedicated chips, it's done and over?!;)) This discussion has been running from time to time various places. The point isn't about the actual formalism transforming one idear (PC-sw) to another DB-hw), it's - as mentioned - the likelyhood of doing the "chessstuff" better than the DB-team, and it is rather big looking at the thin outcome of all that cabinets of hardware and speed! (In contradition to results from the better sw-developers). > >there is _no_ C compiler for the DB hardware. the chips are vlsi circuits >and not something that is 'programmable'... Right - there are just given as is ... > >exactly the opposite. you take out what you can't afford computationally, >to keep your tactical speed at an acceptable level. DB has _no_ such problem >and gives up _nothing_ they want to do, they just designed it into the hardware >where the cost was _zero_... (speed cost). Se above. If they really is able to implement infinite amonts of "chessknowledge" in hardware, then they ought to, which they obvious did not. A bit like racing MC's - you can build a superior (regarding speed/moment(um)) MC and you will still loose to the ones, that are more rigid, stable, better designed, etc., etc. So the poll-question is rather sensefull, perhaps with a little refrasing as e.g.: "if the DB-team have had access to the brilliance of the best sw-programmers of today, do You then think, they would have come up with a better result?" Yes, is my humble bet. kim
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.