Computer Chess Club Archives




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

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
>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
Why is a PII/300 not an issue when it is significantly faster than a
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.
>> 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.

It just shows we aren't "stupid."

This page took 0.03 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.