Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:50:46 01/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2000 at 20:29:44, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 22, 2000 at 19:56:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Stupid is a good choice of words here. Because of _course_ it can run without >>the chips. Just like Intel runs the next-generation X86 without the chip. > >This shows your ignorance of hardware design. Yes, of course Intel runs >transistor-level simulations of its next-generation processors. But Intel also >runs innumerable higher-level simulations, too. And those simulations are NOT a >billion times slower than the final product. > >How do you think FHH tested the chip? Did he say, "Well, this chip seems to >solve most of the WAC problems, so I guess it's working right!" That's possible, >but it strikes me as pathetically irresponsible, considering that one spin of >the chip probably cost several million dollars. More likely is that he tested >against software that did exactly the same stuff. > >BTW, you may have more computer chess experience than I do, but you're not going >to pull a fast one on me about electrical engineering. This post of yours might >confuse other people, but it just lowers my opinion of you. > >-Tom I really don't mind what your opinion of me is, as that really doesn't matter in the great scheme of things very much. You want to make silly suggestions, and then don't like it when someone points out why they are silly. As far as how things get designed and simulated, you might ask a company like Apple why they were buying Crays... I'll let you find the answer... but it has to do with the speed of emulating a hardware design... As far as suggesting that Hsu take deep thought and rewrite it for the PeeCee to prove how strong it was, that is just plain stupid. What would drive him to spend the year or two necessary to do that? When he built the _real_ machine? I would _never_ have tried to rewrite Cray Blitz for the PeeCee... because it is built around operations that are horrendously expensive on the PeeCee. I simply wouldn't waste the time, rather I would do just what I chose to do, start over and try to design for the 'new platform'. If Hsu wanted to do a software only program, that would be the _right_ way to do it, not your suggestion of rewriting the hardware stuff into software. It makes no sense. No matter how many times you say it, it _still_ won't make any sense. When programming you don't think like a hardware designer would think to solve a problem. When designing hardware, you don't think like a programmer would think to solve the problem. And a hardware and software solution to the same problem would most probably look completely different, except for the result they produce, which should be the same... Your being in a EE program doesn't impress me. Once you graduate, that might. But I worked with two PhD/EE types for years designing hardware. Been there, done that, not really interested in doing it again, but I do understand what they have to do... from simulators to logic analyzers...
This page took 0.01 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.