Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 19:37:30 05/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 1999 at 09:28:31, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On May 17, 1999 at 00:36:39, James B. Shearer wrote:
>
>>On May 14, 1999 at 09:52:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On May 14, 1999 at 01:38:11, Gregor Overney wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>>2) You still need to write the correct algorithms to make this chip work. And
>>>>those algorithms are pretty complex (see evaluation functions etc.)
>>>>
>>>
>>>But it has _already_ been done. All that is left is to use the "new" fab
>>>process to increase density and clock speed.. DB's chess chips only ran at
>>>20-24 megahertz. running that up to 16x faster seems quite easy with todays
>>>silicon capabilities as that would still be a modest < 400mhz processor.
>>
>> This assumes:
>>1) Hsu's startup has the right to use the IBM deep blue code.
>
>He's already publicly stated that he is doing this, so I would assume that
>permission has already been granted?
I have not seen any such statement.
>
>>2) The IBM deep blue code (written for the big endian power chips) can be
>>trivially ported to the (little endian) Intel chips used in PCs.
>> I would doubt both of these assumptions.
>> James B. Shearer
>
>(2) is a non-issue. IE 'crafty' is much more 'endian' aware than DB, yet it
>runs on big-endian and little-endian machines with no problems at all. The
>PCI interface could 'correct' the endian-order of the data without the chip
>ever knowing...
(2) might be a non-issue if the deep blue code was carefully written to
be endian independent. Is crafty naturally endian independent or carefully
written (and tested) to be endian independent? There are often major problems
in porting code to other endian machines if this was not considered and designed
for from the start.
James B. Shearer
This page took 0.01 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.