Author: Greg Lindahl
Date: 10:56:19 12/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
>Actually, while IBM is fairly clueless about chess, the DB team itself >had a fair amount of chess savvy, and *hired* a top level player >to give them advice on its play. Then why did the Scientific American article (I think that's where it was) about Deep Blue talk about how their team didn't have much chess savvy when they started? And yes, I know they hired a Grand Master later on; I met him at the SuperComputing '96 conference, where they had Deep Blue set up in the Carnegie Museum of Art for a party. All I was doing was evoking the same image. >Here are a few things to consider I think. Lots of people are happy to give advice already; that's nice, but what I am looking for are interested parties. I don't have the answers today; that's why forming a team is the first order of business. >2. As you no doubt know, message passing parallel systems are prone >to subtle race condition Not if designed properly. Parallel processing has grown up a lot in recent years. I've worked on a distributed operating system (Legion) and am well versed in such issues. >3. Will the code produced be GPL? That depends. If volunteers write it, they decide (as a group) and I expect they'd go GPL. If someone hands me a distributed memory program right off the bat, and it's commercial, then they will probably want to keep their property, and of course that limits the ability or interest of volunteers to work on it. >4. Since nobody want to donate work to a project that is doomed, Chicken. Egg. Problem. >expect >people to want a lot of information about every little detail of this >project before they offer to help. There is no design yet, so I can't answer questions like "hey, is it possible to build that FPGA?" -- greg
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.