Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:44:11 10/17/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 1997 at 09:54:08, Chris Whittington wrote: > >So the argument boils down to: > >Others do it, so its ok, more than ok, for me as well. > >Just supposing we collectively created a new title: WMCC-PC-Champion. We >could do this. It could have cachet .... > >Would you then be persuaded to run on one of the fast PC's instead ? So >we could make the tourney a 'fair' platform one as a result .... ? > >Probably we'ld need to get Bob to agree as well ... > >Chris > > > First I don't think you need me to agree on anything. I'm but one person. I've been doing this longer than the rest of you by a wide margin, and since my first ACM event about 25 years ago, *nothing* has changed. This has *always* been about both a good program *and* a hot machine to run it on. Chess 4.x is a good example, always running on the fastest CDC machine around. Cray Blitz is another good example, running on $60 million machines every year. The only reason why I try to get the fastest machine I can is simple: I don't want to go to Paris and repeatedly smash my face into a brick wall, just because it feels so damned good when I stop. :) To avoid the smashing, I want to be relatively "equal" in terms of hardware, to see how the program can play. If everyone would cut the assembly bullshit out, as many of us have, a "uniform platform" event could be done, where *everyone* gets a quick platform to run on. The new Mac machines are better than the pentium II's, and getting better all the time. However, if anyone organizes a "uniform platform" event, I'd go. But the WMCCC has *never* been uniform. Years ago the dedicated machines were running at clock rates way faster than anything that could be bought. So long as anyone is playing in the horsepower race, I will do my best to play there as well. I don't like it one bit, because it takes a lot of time to make these arrangements, test on the new hardware before the event, figure out how to transfer gigabytes of endgame databases and opening books and stuff after arriving, and so forth. I'd rather use that time to run and analyze games on ICC for example. This event is only partially about the best program, it has a hardware factor tossed in. I don't think that I'd even bet money that one of the 766 alphas is going to win... but I would be more on them than I would on a K6/233, because of the speed factor. It's important. How important, I don't know. And I'd prefer *not* to find out by running on something that is 2-3X slower than the fastest hardware there. You call this "self-serving"... I tend to think of it as "self-preservation". Believe me, My first 10 years of ACM events came on hardware way slower than everyone elses. I finally joined the arms race, and did much better. Yes, CB blew out the programs on slow machines. But it also *competed* with the programs on fast machines. I would suppose that if everyone wanted to do so, the ICCA could be convinced to make this a uniform platform event. I can run on anything from a blender to a Cray T90. I prefer the PC because I have one in my office and one at home, where I can run Crafty whenever I want and for however long I want. Getting a T90 is a bit harder, although I might try for next year's WCCC perhaps. And perhaps I'll simply show up with my P5/233 notebook and have fun.
This page took 0.04 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.