Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Chris Whittington

Date: 06:55:03 10/22/97

Go up one level in this thread



On October 22, 1997 at 09:27:59, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>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...
>
>

I expected a few p2 300's. Don't really approve, but their advantage is
not going to be 3.5 x as with liquid nitrogen cooled alphas, is it ?

>
>>>
>>>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?

On the same playing field. Not another class or two above.

>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"???

A class or two above. 2x or anything near it is another class. Maybe 1.5
is another class. 1.2 or 1.3 is the same class IMO.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>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."

Steamrollers can be pretty stupid, but its not sensible to argue with
them.

Chris




This page took 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.