Author: Prakash Das
Date: 15:36:31 06/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 1999 at 13:46:07, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 03, 1999 at 00:07:02, Prakash Das wrote: > >>On June 02, 1999 at 23:52:11, Prakash Das wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 1999 at 15:30:41, Tania Devora wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>What is the hardware for the 9th Wccc99 ? >>>> >>>>There are many strong computer programs that not go to participate in this >>>>World championship , like Chessmaster6000, and many others. >>>> >>>>I think that this is not a fair play . Cilkchess and others programs will run is >>>>a Super machines, is evident that could win easy. >>>> >>>>For me all the programs, will run in the same computer with the same ram memory. >>>> >>>>Is the only way to see the real strengh of the program. >>>> >>>>For example Fritz5.32 in a Pentium III 500 MHZ could beat Fritz5.32 (pentium 200 >>>>mmx) , for a big score. >>> >>> >>> Tania, you are wasting your breath. A while back, I started a thread called >>>"Uneven hardware for wmcc?" in which I questioned the purpose of this >>>self-congratulatory exercise. >>> Most of teh replies went like this: it's fun, it's like creating a Mount >>>Olympus of chess programs, we are coming with the meanest baddest machine, etc >>>etc. No one really cared about addressing the real point: what the hell is going >>>to be accomplished. >>> So, sit back, and get ready for a few yawns. You will see the same old programs >>>which are at "top of charts" decimate the others (not bad programs necessarily) >>>running on weak hardware. >>> If we tried to solve cancer in this "scientific" manner, there's no hope for >>>living beings. >> >> Well, following up on myself. I thought this was obvious, but as in my previous >>post on that other thread, let's say program A on big bad hardware B, beat >>program D on weaker hardware E. What did this prove? Wins and losses are all >>relative, and so will be the standings later on. What kind of Mount Olympus did >>we scale (Karinsdad)?? It is a mirage where we appear to have created a super >>"playing system". But this would have achieved by beating another on weaker >>hardware. Next day, the result will be different. >> >> Let's hold a WMCC everyday with changing hardware. That way, we will create >>tons of mount Olympus! > >How much scientific advancement was created by man stepping on the moon? > >Well, from the point of view of most people, quite a bit. We now have satellite >technology, cellular phones, microwave ovens, personal computers, and a lot of >other technology that can be directly linked to that one competition. I doubt that all the things you point out above were accomplished just because men landed on moon. As a matter of fact, NASA's big budget space programs (like travel to moon, travel to pluto maybe etc), do not have the proportionate amount of advance as the budget they spent. For that same amount of money, much better advancement would have been possible right here inside the laboratories on Earth. Yes, there is some advancement (if you are spending zillions, something will happen), but it is a wasteful way of doing research. Nobel physicist Richard Feynman said as much. He said that these kind of things are only for the egos of bureaucrats and politicians. It is also for the consumption of the common man. Everybody looks good. Wonderful. Not really. Building the super collider in Texas (instead of shelving it) would have produced some great advances in high energy physics, and many applications to other areas. A spacecraft shooting off in a blazing cloud of flames looks wonderful. People buy into it. > >Do you think that both the US and the Soviets said, "Hey, we can only use this >type of rocket fuel or these types of seats in the spacecraft."? > >No, they experimented with a lot of different designs and ideas until they came >up with ones that worked for them. I tried to understand what you said, but I couldn't. Who is preventing anyone of these guys from using whatever rocket fuel (or whatever) to do what they want. Don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. > >Do you think that Deep Blue would have EVER existed if not for Belle and HiTech >being allowed to compete on different hardware platforms? The advancement of man >is not always limited to black and white scientific experiments. There is nothing like black and white experiments I have seen. Many experiments can be very very difficult and the results hard to interpret. No one is preventing from experiments like Belle and others you point out, from happening. The topic was, this is a "world championship". Haven't understood yet, world champion of what. In this scenario, the WC would be one who beat the others overall. But it would have been beaten other non-optimum "systems". So, once again, I don't see what was proved. > >No, they said that for this event, it is both traditional and it makes sense to >find out which program/hardware combination is the best every three years. Why call it a world championship. This title doesn't make sense to me.. There are all kinds of computer/technological/etc "fairs" being held all the time.. Companies come out with great and new products. The platform is non-uniform, everyone comes up with their own creation, but no one calls this environment a "world championship." > >Prakash, most of the people on this forum will congratulate you if you put up >the money for and follow through on a scientific experiment like you propose. >However, they do not necessarily appreciate you putting down a traditional event >because you do not like how it is being run. I am not putting down the tradition.. I understand all that. I was questioning the "value" of such a thing, although, there is a "value" in everything, we can argue about semantics. Just because the purpose escapes me and I wonder about it, doesn't mean, you automatically ask me to put zillions of dollars to host another event :) Karinsdad, using your logic, anyone who questioned anything would always have to put up a huge fund. > >By doing this, you are attempting to stifle innovation and competition. Those things cannot be stifled. Human race has proved, despite passing inhospitable circumstances. Projects like deep blue etc. will always be pursued. I don't see how this will be stifled, just because it didn't get an arbitrary title of world champion. >Grumble about it without doing anything and hero will not be the label >that most people place on you. > I don't grumble. you are :) (I am just questioning this designation of "world championship.")
This page took 0.01 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.