Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:07:03 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 17:32:02, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 17:16:07, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On July 14, 2004 at 14:40:17, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>I did not suggest to abolish the open hardware format to begin with. What I >>>suggest is to hold two events, WCCC for open hardware, and WMCCC for uniform >>>hardware. Just the way it used to be. In WCCC you will find the best >>>engine+hardware combination, and in WMCCC you will find the strongest chess >>>program. >> >>What about the future when the definition of a microprocessor will become fuzzy? >>We may not even be able to buy a current CPU with a single core. My >>"microprocessor" may have two cores, while the next guy's "microprocessor" has >>eight. > >The definition suggested by Stefan MK would be the best: "every participant must >run on the machines provided by the organization". This will also result in more >programmers participating in the tournament, as they will no longer have to >worry about buying the hardware, or carrying the machine with them. Bogus concept. What about the assembly programmer that targeted the opteron? Can't run on X86, and so can't participate. What about running the event on the opteron then? Now the X86 asm programmer is at a disadvantage. Forget this "equalization" stuff. It has more holes than merit.
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.