Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 15:51:02 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 18:33:41, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 18:12:10, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On January 26, 2000 at 18:06:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>No, I assure you that the general-purpose instruction vs. DB instruction >>>situation is very clear, regardless of background. If you don't understand it, I >>>will be happy to explain it via e-mail, but I don't think it needs to be >>>re-hashed here. >> >>Unfortunately, it's not so clear. But I don't plan on rehashing it here, >>either, until I get some more information on it, hopefully from the source. > >No, it is quite obvious. It takes very little computer expertise to understand, >too. Here is a direct quote from the abstract of FHH's IEEE article: > >"On a general-purpose computer, the computation performed by the chess chip for >one chess position is estimated to require up to 40,000 general-purpose >instructions." > >Now we can make the following assumptions: >* one hertz = one instruction (good enough) >* Bob is correct -> FHH meant 40,000 DB instructions >* DB chip searched at least 2M NPS > >Here is the simple arithmetic based on these assumptions: > >(2M nodes/sec) * (40k instructions/node) = 80G > >In other words, the DB chip would have to run at 80 GIGAhertz to search 2M NPS, >which the obviously did not do. > >-Tom Maybe, since it is a chip, it does more than one thing at once. I do *not* have an EE background, but it would seem to me that you could design a chip that would do several things at the same time, and it would take a very long time to do the same thing serially. bruce
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.