Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 02:06:13 01/25/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2000 at 04:35:33, David Blackman wrote: >On January 24, 2000 at 12:20:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 24, 2000 at 09:57:58, Amir Ban wrote: >>>"I'll bet that I have several evaluation terms that are not practical for them >>>to compute." >>> >>>Amir >> >> >>Let me repeat also: "There is _nothing_ you can do in software that they can't >>do in hardware in _far_ less time. _absolutely nothing_." That is the benefit >>of doing what they did in hardware. Never a question of "can I afford this or >>will it slow me down too much?" Only a question of "is this worth the time it >>will take to design it?" > >I wonder if there is some stuff that you want to eval in about 1% of positions. >You just have a quick if statement mostly, but in 1% of positions it triggers >and you do 500 lines of code. In a software program, this costs you very little >except RAM, which is cheap. If you do 200k NPS, 1% of that is still 2000. So you're running 500 extra lines of code 2000x/sec. And if you put several of these things in, you'll probably end up doing it at least 10-20K x/sec. This is going to slow you down quite a bit. You'll no longer be doing 200k NPS, for sure. :) >In hardware, it costs you for chip area and partly for power, even for those 99% >of positions that don't use it. > >If i was doing hardware, i'd avoid most of these. In software, i'd put them in >if i had the time and the knowledge. > >I can't think of any good examples right now, but i'm sure the slow/smart >brigade use plenty of them. If you were making a machine to play against arguably the best chessplayer _ever_, would you want to risk _not_ putting them in, just to avoid some extra chip area/heat, when you could mis-evaluate something and lose a game?
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.