Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:57:42 12/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 1999 at 15:48:35, Greg Lindahl wrote: >On December 17, 1999 at 18:59:56, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>Yes, but Bob wrote exactly why memory is the necessity, and you did not explain >>how you plain to avoid using it. > >Bob explained why memory was a necessity if you wanted to exactly replicate Deep >Blue's chips. He did not consider either (1) FPGA cards with SRAMs, which are >common, or (2) whether it's best to put as much into the FPGA as Deep Blue does. > >That's why I was disappointed with his comments. > >> You can waive your hands in the air as long as >>you wish; but when it comes down to technical details, I'd recommend you to >>listen to others > >I am happy to listen to others. I have been listening to others. I just don't >think that a discussion about something that I don't think is a good idea anyway >(due to 2) and that is fairly moot (due to 1) is worthwhile. Here we disagree strongly. Because I have talked to Ken many times over the past 20+ years, and Hsu as well. And both found that the entire engine has to go into the hardware, otherwise you end up with a bottleneck in passing data back and forth between the hardware and software parts of the program. This isn't bad to make a program faster, but it provides a sharp asymptote that has a slope much less than we'd like. But as I said, doing a 1978-Belle-type design would be interesting, because it would provide a significant speed-boost. But it wouldn't push anywhere near the one-chip DB level of performance (ie no 2+ million nodes per second speeds on a single CPU).
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.