Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 10:38:21 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 12:54:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >talk to the current commercial chess programmers. What is the probability >that a new program would sell enough to pay Hsu at least $100-150K per year, It may be small, but who cares? I'm selling my chess program. I make several hundred dollars per month. It's not nearly what Microsoft pays me, but you don't see me sending back my royalty checks. Your reasoning is pathetic. And aside from money, there is a fair amount of respect and prestige to be gained by writing the world's best PC chess program. >Message passing? Using an array of 16 chess processors? Using the hardware >in the chess processors to hold the board position, make/unmake moves, etc? So the SP was searching 10 plies, but it didn't know what the position was? Right. Regarding message passing and multiprocessing, that sounds like a lot of stuff to remove. Not add. >I am trying to say, apparently unsuccessfully, that rewriting a big chunk of >hardware stuff to run in software is a big project. The design decisions would >be totally different to make it efficient. Not just a "port". A total >re-write. I don't disagree with any of this. Here's what I want to know: Why doesn't FHH stuff his evaluation function in a PC chess program? He already knows all the terms and weights to use, so it should be easy. If it's really so great, there's no reason NOT to do it. >Special purpose hardware will _always_ dominate general-purpose stuff in terms >of speed. Always has, always will. Did I ever argue this? How about we stick to the conversation? -Tom
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.