Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:37:43 12/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1999 at 19:40:41, Greg Lindahl wrote: >On December 20, 1999 at 19:25:17, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>He is talking about the hash table. If you punt on that, you take a huge hit >>in performance. The only way to make it up is to do dozens of chess processors >>like DB used. This is assuming that the chess processor is really doing a true >>alpha/beta search, and not just pieces of this (like evaluation). > >Again, you're making the assumption that you have to put the hash table on the >chip or not use it at all. That isn't necessary; you could put just the >evaluation function onto the chip, and do the hash lookup on the main processor. >In order for that to be interesting, the evaluation function has to be a large % >of total time, which is true for some existing computer algorithms (but not >Crafty.) Crafty's eval is 50% of the total time. Nobody is over 90% of total time in eval. So there isn't a lot of room for improvement there. The problem that you may be overlooking is this: Suppose a very fast program (fritz) searches 300K nodes per second with almost no eval. Your hardware won't help much. Suppose another program searches at 30K with 90% of the time spent in eval. You speed that program up to almost 300K. That isn't enough to make a huge difference, particularly when someone can compile on other platforms (like the 21264) and get a big boost there as well...
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.