Author: Sean Empey
Date: 09:39:15 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 12:30:13, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 12:19:46, Sean Empey wrote: > >>On July 14, 2004 at 12:11:31, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2004 at 12:06:35, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:41:04, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:38:31, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I wonder what except the results changed from two weeks ago to now to make you >>>>>>imply this is an unfair event and go on raving about it ?! >>>>>> >>>>>>Weren't you even one of the organizers? >>>>> >>>>>Yes, and I complained loudly about it even before the event. >>>> >>>> It doesn't make sense to organize something you complain about. Either ask >>>>_before_ that it is a WMCCC this year or don't organize something you're >>>>against. >>> >>>I'm glad that we organized it, and am very happy that it took place >>>successfully. >>> >>>I'm of course not against it, but simply say that there is room for >>>improvement. >> >>Yes, but it's not making it easier for _you_ to win. It's marketing it better >>and getting more participation. > >For this very reason a uniform hardware rule should be adopted. The number of >participants would be much higher in a uniform hardware event, and you can >expect other strong single processor engines (like Hiarcs and Tiger) to join. Is this just a guess or do you have proof that participation would be higher? I can say I would be turned off if WCCC became a handicapped event. And chess tiger beats Storm quite often when storm runs on a quad. I also lose to other commercials running on a single CPU system. Your ratio is not close to solid for determining the winner or advantage. Especially in long time controls. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Your problem is that you said here that Falcon only loses consistently to >>>>Shredder and now you need an excuse. But you needn't, actually. Just accept WCCC >>>>is not a measure of strength but just a party for programmers and teams and try >>>>to prove your strength in more scientifically tests like SSDF. >>>> >>>> José C. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The multi-processor entries got the first 5 places in the tournament - this was >>>>>>partly unexpected by some, probably including you. Had you been aware of it >>>>>>before the event you probably would have tried to get better hardware in case >>>>>>your engine can use it successfully. Every other answer is a bit hard to believe >>>>>>for me. >>>>>> >>>>>>Peter
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.