Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:20:16 12/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1999 at 00:42:38, Greg Lindahl wrote: >On December 20, 1999 at 21:52:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>>There is no reason why you have to assume that you must have the move generator >>>or alpha/beta search on the FPGA. That assumption underlies Bob's claims about >>>feasability, and my complaint that there's more than one way to skin a cat. >>> >>>I would love to see a discussion about the minimum useful stuff on an FPGA, but >>>of course that depends on how your engine is written, and Bob's engine spends >>>relatively little time in eval. >>> >>>-- g >> >> >>Again, that statement is simply wrong. 50% of the time is spent in the eval. >>That is more than any other single component by a wide margin. > >In my book, 50% is "relatively little time in eval", especially when I'm >comparing it to an engine which spends 90% in eval. > >-- g please, Please, PLEASE, take a math course. 90% is exactly how much bigger than 50%?? Not quite a factor of 2.0 you say? 1.8 you say? So such a solution will speed up some other program at most 1.8 times more than it will speed up mine? Don't forget the math... 1.8 is not a huge number. I can get more than that by simply moving to a single alpha.
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.