Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 16:54:18 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 19:47:07, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 26, 2000 at 19:29:45, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>On January 26, 2000 at 19:00:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>It certainly does not sound likely, but without the context of what Hsu actually >>>said, I can't be sure what was meant. But then, I did not read the threads in >>>question. I think Bob may have reviewed FHH's book, and maybe he got the idea >>>from there. What is the thread title. I'd like to take a look. >> >>From post 90918: (by Bob) >>>You overlook the hardware point. The equivalent of 40K instructions. But when >>>done in the hardware design of DB. This does not mean that 40K instructions >>>on an X86 would replicate this evaluation... >> >>I guess my memory isn't that great and I made a mistake. He never directly said >>you have to send the DB chip 40k instructions to evaluate a node. However, you >>can see for yourself that what he did say is even more confusing and still not >>correct. > >Sounds like a classical case of missed communication to me. He said the >"equivalent" of 40K instructions. That could be (in my mind) any number of >actual instructions, including one. > >One problem with the english language is that it has ambiguities. Three people >can read the same sentence and get three different meanings out of it. The meaning I took was that he estimated it would take 40000 general-purpose CPU instructions to perform the computations that the custom hardware can do in some small number of cycles. Dave
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.