Author: Andrew Slough
Date: 17:03:33 11/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 09, 1999 at 15:24:31, Michel Langeveld wrote: >On November 08, 1999 at 17:56:48, Andrew Slough wrote: > >>On November 08, 1999 at 17:24:27, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On November 08, 1999 at 15:26:47, Andrew Slough wrote: >>>>Stephen Streater had a program a while back that ran on a 200Mhz StrongARM >>>>(which is single issue, 32 bit), running on a 16Mhz memory bus that did over >>>>2000kNPS. The ARM architecture is _really_ nice for chess. >>>> >>>>Andy >>> >>>Did it play or was it a test bed? It's easy to get a man to the moon if you are >>>allowed to distribute him over an area several miles square. >>> >>>bruce >> >>It actually played, but it wasn't very good. It was a bit like TECH in its >>positional evaluation :-) The posts from a few years ago are on dejanews. It >>was fast because the whole board was stored in registers and one instruction on >>the ARM could extract the type of piece + the colour and set condition flags >>based on that. It was full alpha-beta with move ordering and hashing etc, but he >>doesn't believe in null-move. >> >>Andy > >TECH is the oppossite of your statement Well, I'm not quite sure what the opposite of "It was a bit like TECH in its positional evaluation :-)" is, but to clarifty: As I understand it, the idea behind TECH was to produce a program with minimal chess knowledge (eg. piece values) and just use search to resolve anything else. They thought it could be used as a measure of how programs improved. By saying: "It was a bit like TECH in its positional evaluation :-)" I meant to say "it had little or none". The smiley was to accentuate. Andy
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.