Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 08:41:26 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 11:26:47, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 11:12:14, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Not at all, Omid >>If you already have a parallel engine you should run it into a hardware capable >>of getting all its power. > >I understand that you are going to provide the hardware, right? > >It is not something personal; next year I will have the needed hardware, but >what about others? Deep Sjeng and ParSOS were also parallel engines, but ran on >single processor not because they thought it was better, but because they did >not have access to a fast multiprocessor machine. > >The analogy of Vasik Rajlich best fits our case: > >======== >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?376694 > >Since we all like analogies, here's another one: using steroids in sports. You >could allow it, and allow all competitors to juice themselves up as they see >fit. The spectators would surely love the performance, and it would be "fair" - >everybody could juice up as they saw fit. Those who stay clean, pay the >performance price which they choose. > >The drawback is that it becomes a huge burden for everybody. The athletes would >have to juice up just to be competitive. This is the role that big hardware >plays now in the WCCC. >======== http://www.talkchess.com/forums/2/message.html?127527 "Omid knew it was an open hardware event before he entered it. Those are the rules. If he cannot obtain big hardware, that's his problem. In fact, he could not have used big hardware anyway because he did not plan for big hardware in his design, which is his problem once again." "Someone like Bob Hyatt has played in open hardware championships for over 30 years. He has planned ahead and designed his project to use the most hardware physically available. That is called foresight and planning. Next year, it will be a wonder to behold if he comes to the event on a 64-way monster. That's what open hardware is about. It's about pushing the envelope and exploring the frontiers of what is possible. The big test for the validity of such a project is a World Championship, which will demonstrate whether his work was any good or not." > > > >>If you have not, then you should as much that is by now the state of the art. >>You just cannot ask for a tournmamet tailored to the needs of your program. >>So it is unnecesary to blame other programs -or the tournament rules- because >>they were running this or that superior horse. I understand you feel frustrated >>because your program was better than thought, got more than perhaps you though >>he would and so you fed hopes to go upper in the ladder. That did not happen to >>the measure you begun to aspire and so you are now enraged. >>That is not neccesary, also. You did very well. Next time youi will use anything >>to get the most of your programming. Next time you will have not this feeling >>that "I they have used just this or that, like me...." >>Please take all this as coming from a friend, not a foe. >>fernando
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.