Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 10:00:07 07/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2004 at 12:24:37, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 15, 2004 at 12:16:53, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On July 15, 2004 at 05:11:21, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2004 at 22:05:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2004 at 14:40:17, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 14:17:33, Matthew Hull wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 13:00:15, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The goal is the best computer chess. You can't have that unless it's open >>>>>>>>hardware. It has always been open hardware, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You forget WMCCC. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No I don't. This is not WMCCC. It's WCCC. The best chess will be played on >>>>>>big hardware. That's why it's open hardware. >>>>>> >>>>>>If you want to argue for inferior chess, then go organize thw World Inferior >>>>>>Computer Chess Championship. >>>>>> >>>>>>Meanwhile, the rest of us want to see the best computer chess the world has to >>>>>>offer. We want to see the envelope pushed as far as it can go. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The best computer chess in the world is supposed to be seen at the World >>>>>>Championship. You can't do that by limiting hardware. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't know how many different ways it needs to be said. Your idea is fine >>>>>>for some other event that is not the WCCC. >>>>> >>>>>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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Absolutely and totally bogus statement. >>>> >>>>What processor will you pick? I want 64 bits. Others want 32 bits. >>> >>> >>>The best solution is to give the participants the possibility to choose the >>>hardware when the participants do not need to care to bring the hardware that >>>they choose and the organizers do it for them. >>> >>>If we talk about WMCCC then a better alternative than uniform hardware is that >>>programmers will be able to ask the organizers to give them every machine that >>>they ask(behind some price) with only one codition that the machine does not >>>have more than one cpu. >> >>Programmer A spent several months to implement parallel search in his program. >> >>Programmer B spent those months to rewrite his uni-proc search into assembly >>language. >> >>You suggested rule favors programmer B. Why? > >A can participates in WCCC when B participates in WMCCC > >I did not say not to have WCCC Programmer A asked (and got) from the organizers acess to 1-CPU Power5 system that costs $20k. Programmer B asked dual Opteron system that costs less than $3k. Should he get it? Chances that average chess program user will get dual Opteron system are much higher than chances that she will get Power5 system. Programmer C asked for new Pentium 5 (or Pentium 6, or ...) system that have *efficient* implementation of multithreading. I.e *one* CPU can run 2 threads simultaneously, with effective speedup (say) 1.8x. Should he get it? Cost of system is $2.5k. Programmer D asked for new AMD K9 (or K10, or ...) system that have dual cores *on chip*. I.e *one* physical chip contains 2 CPU cores, with effective speedup (say) 1.95x. Should he get it? Cost of system is $1.8k. Programmer E asked for new Itanium4 system that have 8 cores *on chip*. Effective speedup is (say) 7.5x. Should he get it? Cost of system is $20k, exactly as cost of Power5 system we gave to programmer A. Programmer F asked for off-the-shelf CPU with built-in FPGA (right now there are such CPUs for embedded systems). He can use FPGA to dramatically speed his search. Cost of system with such CPU is $300 (CPU/memory/serial port, all the interface is running on plain PC). Can he use it? Programmer G brought with him FPGA or ASIC system designed by him. Total cost of all components is $1.5k. Can he use it? BTW, his hardware can do 16 independent searches in parallel, but there is exactly one CPU in his system. Programmer H asked some time on $100k S/3090. His program can use only one CPU, and single-CPU performance of S/3090 is 2x less than Opteron 2GHz. To partially compensate for this his program is written in the S/3090 assembly language, so it cannot be ported anywhere. He points that he don't get *any* hardware advantage from running on sych a system compared to *any* WMCCC participant, so he should be entered into WMCCC. Programmer J wrote his program for the $40 "Gameboy Portable" with z80 CPU. There are good chances that when he will not get 1st place he would say "competition was not fair -- they have hardware advantage". Should he be allowed? Thanks, Eugene >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.