Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 06:43:58 10/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 09:12:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: 1. that he didn't cast the first stone 2. that he'll stop throwing stones when everybody else does 3. er, 4. that's it See 10,000 words below. Brevity is not beautiful, apparently. Chris Whittington >On October 22, 1997 at 04:12:09, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>On October 21, 1997 at 17:02:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 21, 1997 at 15:10:27, jean-christophe WEILL wrote: >>> >>>>On October 20, 1997 at 09:57:44, Reinhold Gellner wrote: >>>> >>>>>Perhaps we should try to convince the others again that a WMCCC with >>>>>equal hardware should become standard. >>>>> >>>>>To illustrate this just have a look at the final standings of Jakarta, >>>>>which correlates strongly with hardware speed. >>>> >>>>We had only Pentium 166Mhz at Jakarta... >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes, for this tournament there was 40 same AMD computers available. >>>>If everyone wants to be fair we can play all on the exactly same >>>>hardware.... But we know that some people wants to be at the top >>>>at all price. This can be by chosing the fastest hardware. >>> >>> >>>Just so you quantify who "some people" are. In this regard, list me as >>>a "follower" not as a leader. My original application asked for a >>>K6/233 >>>machine. After seeing alphas and PII/300's popping up everywhere, I >>>decided >>>that to have a fair chance, Crafty needed faster hardware. I'll happily >>>play >>>on "equal" hardware. I won't happily play using "inferior" hardware. >>>Why >>>don't you guys get together in Paris and stop this? IE make it uniform >>>platform. I'm not sure what platform, but either make it *one* specific >>>machine, or else drop the subject and let the event run as it has since >>>the >>>first WMCCC event, where anything goes so long as it is a commercially >>>available microprocessor. >>> >>>Either change it, or put up with it. But all the complaining is doing >>>nothing but creating hard feelings and lots of posts here, while the >>>original problem still remains... >> >>Well, sorry if it creates hard feelings. Don't get the idea that you are >>being picked out, but there's a reason: >> >>1. Two years ago there was no forum to discuss this openly. So everybody >>just moaned and griped to their friends. Some took action which was >>never made clear or apparent. For example, Thorsten has always >>complained that SSDF never tested Hiarcs on fast PC's in SWeden after >>Hiarcs won the WMCCC Munich. Maybe the SSDF didn't like the idea of >>Hiarcs winning it on a superfast Sparc ? >> >>2. Last year the machine detail wouldn't have counted. The fight was >>over higher moral issues of genocide etc. >> >>3. This year, we have the forum, hardware advantage is the major issue; >>therefore it gets discussed. You two guys are here discussing and you >>two guys are using 750 TeraHertz. So you two guys get to take the heat. >>Basically you two guys should stop griping and trying to close the >>discussion: you want a tournament winning advantage ? Well then, defend >>yourselves from those who you have disadvantaged. >> > > >I'm not defending myself period. track down the original alpha users, >the >programmers that are taking PII/300's, and so forth, as they are the >ones >that led me to search for something faster. I don't consider the alpha >a >"tournament winning advantage". I consider it a "avoiding tournament >disadvantage" issue. There *is* a *huge* difference... > > > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Kind of silly that again this tournament is first a search for the best >>>>hardware and then to the best software. >>> >>>the "again this tournament ..." is important. specifically *again*. It >>>has >>>gone on forever. If enough want it stopped, make it uniform-platform >>>and >>>be done with it. I'll play either way. As is or uniform. >>> >> > > >>Is there a moral philosopher in the house ? there seems something wrong >>in this highly pragmatic approach ..... > > >thus spake the tortoise to the hare? It's not my intent to go to Paris >and be a ply behind someone just because they have faster hardware. As >I said, get a majority to change the rule. But I'll bet a majority will >be hard to come by, seeing that maybe 1/2 of the field will be on >something >better than an AMD K6/233. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>Certainly there will be another way to associate programs and hardware >>>>in some other kind of competition. >> >>I hope so. >> >>Chris Whittington >> >>>> >>>>Jean-Christophe
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.