Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: DB NPS (anyone know the position used)?

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 00:14:11 01/26/00

Go up one level in this thread

On January 25, 2000 at 23:38:06, Peter W. Gillgasch wrote:

>Ad 1: This was true for Deep Thought since the difference
>      between the fast and the slow eval was noticeable
>      due to the sequential properties introduced by
>      the Xylinx devices looking at the position on a
>      file by file basis. Since DBII is not hampered
>      by issues like FPGA capacities this is the first
>      bottleneck that was to be removed. As Dave Footland
>      has reported they had interesting things in their
>      evaluation. In the light of this and in the light
>      of things Hans has said it it extremely unlikely
>      that they ever take a "slow eval" in DB since there
>      is (a) probably no speed gain in doing so and (b)
>      things like pins and king safety can add up quite
>      a bit, taking a "slow eval" makes no sense in a
>      machine which knows that the queen is pinned and
>      will be lost versus a bishop or that there is a
>      mate in one versus your king.

I'm not sure I follow this. It seems like both a fast eval and a slow eval would
make sense, depending on the situation.

I read somewhere that DB's fast eval took 3 cycles and the slow eval took 11
cycles. I'm not 100% sure about the 11 cycles, though. It may be 12.


This page took 0.18 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.