Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:38:01 10/27/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 1997 at 10:47:40, Chris Whittington wrote: >I was there on Saturday and Sunday, but has to elave at the start of the >first round. Here for your amusement is my summary of events .. > >1. The three 767 alphas arrived. Two worked and one failed. Bruce gto >one and Dark Thought the other one. Cratfy is running on a 600, I think. >The 'spare' alpha 500's were distributed to various people, Shredder got >one of them. We are running on an alpha/500. As I had posted on several occasions before, this was the machine DEC was shipping to Paris on our behalf, and I was fairly sure that the 767's were not going to be reliable enough to keep all three up. I talked with Jason Saturday night after a day of testing and he confirmed that 767 #3 was DOA... it would run for a few minutes, then fail and reboot. As a result, we are running on what we had tested on. For us at least, based on the speed results that Chris quoted, our machine is almost the exact same speed as the PII/300's that are there in numbers as well. So we end up with two blazing fast machines, a bunch of fast machines, and another bunch of not-so-fast machines. > >2. Bruce gave me some benchmarks, plus we benchmarked CSTal on a P6 300. > >If a P6 200 is rated at 1.0 then: >P6 300 is 1.47 >Alpha 500 is 1.5 >Alpha 600 is 1.75 where did you get the number for an alpha/600? I didn't know anyone there had one? The machine we are using clearly says alpha-station/500 n the front... >Alpha 767 is 3.0 (Bruce was a little cautious with this figure,a nd may >well wish to modify it. But it seems the the 767's really fly. > >3. I put forward a complaint at the players meeting that the 767 alphas >were not available machines, and that, in the past this had been a >criteria for entry. (DEC were putting out advertising material at the >WMCC which referred to the alphas as prototypes. > >At this point it emerged that the 767's were actually overclocked 600's. >And it was argued by Marsland that they were available because they were >there ! common argument. Lang used this in the old Mephisto days. :) > >Anyway, my complaint was overruled,I asked for it to go to the appeal >committee, but this was refused, as was my request for a players vote on >the issue. > >4. Tom Kerrigan's operator didn't turn up; so it was put to the vote >whether Stobor should be allowed to play if a volunteer operator could >be found. This vote was passed by 20 out of 34; and a volunteer >voluntered. So Stobor is in, and another waiting program isn't. > >5. Amir Ban proposed that the 233 to 200 problem be ameliorated by >allowing participants with 200 MD machines to add 20 minutes to their >clocks in the first two hours, and 10 minutes every hour thereafter. > >This was allowed to go to a vote as well, and was passed by 19 for, 12 >against. A recount had to be taken, since the CSTal team voted twice. >Thorsten (the loose cannon, and not even an icca member) voted in >favour, and I voted against :) this is a non-working solution of course, because thinking on my opponent's time is going to be accurate at least 50% of the time, which means in 1/2 of the moves I will get to use the same extra time my opponent gets. However, I assume this extra time is only added when playing against the 767's ?? > >Before the players meeting, I approached van den Herik and proposed that >there were issuesof substance that we should discuss on the penultimate >day, Saturday. > >These are: > >1. election of programmer representative > >2. proposal that we create a committe of programmers to decide on the >machine size/rating issue for next year. > >3. the issue of WMCCC staying as it is, or being uniform platform, ot >being totally open; or cycling around the three. > > >That's it. > >Chris Whittington
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.