Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 14:35:12 07/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2004 at 02:42:07, Ed Schröder wrote: >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. > > >It's like saying: the budget of the Champion League is limited to 40 million >Euro, or inother words, the value of the 11 soccer players on the grass may not >exceed 40 million Euro. > >What kind of tournament is that? > >Answer -> a devaluated one. > >It's not what people want, the spectators want to see the best soccer possible, >a competition on the highest level. I'm sure if you let each player take as much steroids and drugs he wants, you would see an even better soccer... > >My best, > >Ed
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.