Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: WMCCC - may the best man at getting the fastest hardware win :(

Author: Chris Whittington

Date: 00:47:16 10/22/97

Go up one level in this thread

On October 21, 1997 at 18:51:58, Bruce Moreland wrote:

>I'm not writing this in exactly the right place, but I can't continue
>looking around for the right place, since it took me a half hour to get
>this one post up, so I can respond to it.  Unfortunately, it was the
>wrong post, so I had to snip everything.
>The contention has been made that Bob and I are destroying this event by
>bringing powerful hardware.

'Destroying' is your exageration.

> More exactly, we are driving away
>commercial programmers who either can't afford or can't arrange hot

It wasn't asserted that YOU WERE, but that the general action of bring
super fast machines MAY be.

>The specific example is Hiarcs, but MChess is also mentioned.
>The supplied hardware at the '95 Paderborn WMCCC was a 120 mhz P5, and
>Hiarcs and MChess brought 133 mhz P5's.  This is not that big a deal,
>but the 133 mhz P5 was the best you could get at that time, and the
>supplied 120 mhz machine didn't have a lot of extras on it.

This is not a big deal by any means. 120 -> 133 is very little.

>At the previous WMCCC, Munich  '93, Hiarcs brought a Sparc of some sort. Note he is an 'amateur' !

Definitely bad as far as I'm concerned. Obviously an attempt to gain a
massive advantage.

>and MChess was on a 60mhz P5.


> I have no idea how fast that Sparc was
>(it is describe only as "very fast" in the ICCAJ), but he won the event.
> I expect that both of these machines were a lot better than the
>supplied machines, which were 486/66's.

Certainly true, and very bad.

>On the inside back cover of the Jun '97 issue of "Chess Monthly" is a
>picture of Hiarcs' box, I presume.  On the box cover it says "World
>Champion Program".  If it also says "Sparc", I don't see it.

This is true. And another reason for being opposed to ultra fast
machines at the WMCCC which give somebody a substantial hardware
advantage; sometimes sufficient to win the tournament.

Note also the length of time he has remained an 'amateur' !

>In both events, several others brought nice machines, usually
>professionals, but also the occasional amateur (XXXX in '95).
>There have also been Alphas in both of those events, a 150 mhz alpha in
>the '93 event (The King, finished second), and a 275 mhz Alpha in the
>'95 event (Dark Thought, finished 7th on Bukholz points).

Likewise I don;t like it.

>I didn't go back any further than this, but I'm sure the articles are
>full of interesting things.

Now presumably, you're listing this to show the uncool bringing of
superfast hardware, to show that it has often dramatically influenced
the result, to show that it has possibly resulted in total distortion of
the tournament.

And I would agree with you.

BUT NOW YOU ARE DOING IT THIS YEAR. And listing all the other occasions
doesn't make your actions any better.



This page took 0.05 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.