Author: Sean Empey
Date: 10:23:23 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 13:04:20, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 12:39:01, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>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. >> >> >>Wrong. CCT6 had Hiarcs, Junior and Rebel AND it was open hardware. There were >>three times the participants. >> >>This proves you are completely wrong. People don't come to WCCC because it's >>too expensive and too long. > >The problem of being too expensive can be solved if the sponsor pay 10000$ for >every programmer who participates so even programmers with no chances to win may >come because they can make money by doing it. > >The number of participants can be limited to 30 participants and 30*10000$ is >only 300000$ that is not much for some rich people so giving the money is no >problem for them and they will also have money for better machines(not PIV but >some quad opteron). > >You only need to convince one of them to give the money. > >Uri Uri, come down to reality. Come back to us.
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.