Author: Stuart Cracraft
Date: 10:21:25 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 12:21:42, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On December 27, 2005 at 11:29:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>You know, without 64 processors, having 2 hardware cards which are development >>cards at just 60Mhz or so, that has simply zero chance against software. >> >>those fpga boards have been made to *develop* chips, not to use them as release >>processors. released fpga hardware runs at near 1Ghz, not 60Mhz!! >> >>So hydra at 1Ghz would surely be a good match for the software, but at 60Mhz, >>no chance, really. fpga development boards weren't designed to be used as >>production hardware :) > >Well, regardless of the speed issues, which could be "solved" by using faster >boards (but which might require redesigning the Hydra hardware entirely due to >routing/timing issues), I think the largest problem of Hydra is the long >development and testing time of an FPGA based solution compared to a general >purpose CPU. > >Given that the problem of computer chess is not finding nice algorithms, but >testing what works, I don't think Hydra has the faintest chance in the long run, >and it's probably already eclipsed by Zappa, Fruit and Rybka now (silly claims >of the Hydra authors notwithstanding). > >-- >GCP I agree with Gian-Carlo's post.
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.