Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:27:59 10/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 03:47:16, Chris Whittington wrote: > >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 >>machines. > >It wasn't asserted that YOU WERE, but that the general action of bring >super fast machines MAY be. > the *only* names I have seen mentioned are "bruce and bob". Not Frans or Ernst or Joel or any of a big group of others bringing something faster than the K6's... >> >>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. I've also asked this before, but no answer. I'll ask again: "how fast is not too fast". IE what is the maximum allowable mhz you'd want to see? Why is a PII/300 not an issue when it is significantly faster than a K6/233? why is a 500 (or 766mhz) alpha a problem, when my 500 mhz machine is probably not even 1.5x the PII/300? Again, "how fast is too fast"??? > >> >>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. > >Likewise. > >> 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. > >Chris > >> >>bruce It just shows we aren't "stupid."
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.