Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:41:15 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 13:23:23, Sean Empey wrote: >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. I am realistic and I am not optimistic that some sponsor will do what I suggest. Unfortunately I exepct again less than 20 participants in WCCC in the best case. The second possibility is that there will be no sponsor and no next WCCC. Uri Uri
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.