Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 09:25:14 06/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 19, 1999 at 00:34:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 18, 1999 at 08:19:14, Dan Homan wrote: > >>On June 17, 1999 at 22:08:24, Fernando Villegas wrote: >> >>>Hi Dan: >>>You are right, of course, but there is a practical point regarding the nature of >>>a test that must be taken into account; his meaning in terms of human >>>usefulness. The example of you race is good precisely to show that: the >>>experiment would be right as a test of the fastest vehicle on wheels, but >>>meaningless, preposterous and something to laugh at. Experiments must be not >>>only logical, but to have a sense. You, as a scientis, know that very well; you >>>prepare an experiment not just because it can be done in his own terms, but to >>>probe something that is important for human purposes, theoretic or practical. >>>Then, when people talks of the sense of this tournament where programs are >>>running in monster kind of hardware, what probably they try to say is that the >>>experiment, even if logical, is not meaningful for his necesities and in fact >>>for almost 99% of people that uses chess programs. What is meaningful for us is >>>what has a relation with our practice. Monsters running at 800 Mhz or so are not >>>reachable for common folk and so the test is meaningless in that specific but >>>very important aspect. Logic is not all and becomes ridiculous without a dosis >>>of common sense. Fact is that we are not going to conclude nothing of the >>>results of this tournaments not only because the few rounds, but because the >>>brute force being used into it. >>>Cheers >>>fernando >> >>Yes, once one understands the question to be answered by an experiment, >>they are free to think that the question itself is a silly one and the >>experiment should never have been done. >> >>If people think that having a competition to find the best artifical >>chess player is a silly thing to do, that is fine with me. I don't think >>anyone has ever claimed that we can use these results to help us do >>anyting useful..... In this case it is purely for fun! >> >>Of course, I suppose that no chess tournament is useful in a practical >>sense.... they are all for entertainment. >> >> - Dan >> >>P.S. I know that one of Melvin's concerns is that the results of >>this tournament will be mis-used by the winners, but mis-use of the >>results of the competition will not be the fault of the competition >>itself. The results of any test can be mis-used. Hopefully the winners >>will also advertise the hardware they ran on to get the title.... it >>might even be a smart advertising strategy if they are a 1 or 4 processor >>machine that beats some of the 100+ processor monsters. > > >I don't understand the issue. The WMCCC is a fairly uniform platform event >every year, with only one cpu per program, and it must be a commercially- >available processor at a commercially-available clock speed. The WCCC has >_never_ been about answering that question. It has simply asked "what is the >strongest chess automaton on the planet?" Without the "on equal hardware" >stipulation inserted... Bob: The issue, from my side, has never been to blame of anything the actual tourn. It is or was just a discusion about the nature of experiments after a post by a guy here. Respect to avalability of current hardware used, that it is a matter of definition. Available in the sense you can purchase it in a shop, yes; availability in the sense common folk can go and purchase THESE DAYS and just like that a 600 Mhz, I am not so sure. But no matter, the tourn was OK and funny to see. Pity your program was not there, but I have already read your reasons. Hope next time. Fernando
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.