Author: Bas Hamstra
Date: 07:58:51 01/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2002 at 06:36:58, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 07, 2002 at 05:56:55, Bas Hamstra wrote: >[snip] >>I have seen these arguments, but they absolutely don't convince me. This kind of >>hurting is *nothing* compared to the hurting that is currently going on, where >>someone on a P3-700 has to compete with a fast quad machine in a tournament. > >In the past, there have been entrants on dedicated hardware like the Fidelity >and Kasparov Sparc. Those would be eliminated (perhaps a phantom dragon, since >dedicated hardware has fallen out of favor). > >In the past there have been experimental entries like Hsu & Campbell's original >effort. Nobody is trying the IC route anymore, so probably a phantom dragon. > >In the past, there have been MacIntosh entries. The Mac is falling out of >favor, but there are still Mac programs around (including some that run *only* >on the Mac). >I'm just pointing out that the uniform hardware solution is not ideal in all >cases. I agree, there is no painless solution. >Also, for uniform hardware, someone has to cough up the expense of renting all >the equal hardware. Perhaps sponsors could be arranged for that. >I think a problem that will appear is that those who can easily afford the >hottest hardware will want to maintain that purely mechanical edge. In other >words, if you can easily come up with a ten thousand dollar machine to use on >the contest, you will want to keep the hardware specification as undefined. > >I think that uniform platform is a good idea if it can be arranged. But I >think arranging it is the hard part. Sigh. I guess you're right. So we have to continue the pointless rat race. Personally I have learned my lesson, OR bring competitive hardware OR stay home. Anything else is misplaced arrogance... Best regards, Bas.
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.