Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 11:09:32 10/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 13:40:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 22, 1997 at 09:52:14, Will Willis wrote: > >>Bob Hyatt wrote: >>>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... >>> >>> >> I think the major sticking point here lies with your definition of >>"avoiding tournament disadvantage" vs. theirs. You're saying (if I'm >>correct) that others in the past have kept raising the hardware levels >>in order to gain an advantage, and you were planning on using a K6-233 >>until you heard about programmers who were taking PII-300's (right so >>far?). Therefore you decided to "level the playing field" so to speak >>by switching to an Alpha. But why a 766mhz Alpha? Why not a 500 or >>whatever the current Alpha that "power users" are using? > > >We had asked Digital for an alpha loaner. Currently, their best >workstation >box is a 600mhz processor. They initially told us they would not be >able to >supply us with a machine. We then contacted Kryotech, and they said >"maybe". >They are sending 3 machines to Paris, one for Dark Thought, one for >Ferret, >and a backup in case either machine arrives dead, or goes down during >the >tournament. If all 3 arrive alive, we can use the 3rd, with the proviso >that >if either of the other two go down, we lose it to replace the defective >machine. > >We then pursued other contacts with Digital, and are getting a 500mhz >alpha >(which is a relatively common variation) shipped to us for use in Paris. > This >is the machine we will most likely be running on. It's the only machine >we have >actually run on to date as well, in testing. I have zero Kryotech >numbers for >performance... > > >> To be honest >>I'm not up on the Alpha processors as much as the x86 based ones, but it >>seems to me anyway that you've gone right past "avoiding tournament >>disadvantage" to "obtaining decisive hardware advantage." I'm not >>making any value judgements either way, obviously under the current >>system you are free to use the fastest hardware you can get your hands >>on. I'm just pointing out what seems to have been hinted at for some >>time but not said outright. > > >I'm not sure I follow. Two other programs are using 766 machines for >certain. So how do I keep up with them, without passing up some others? >IE I'm not trying to find a machine just a little better than the worst >machine, I'm trying to find a machine as good as the best one there, to >maximize my chances... This just means thta the numbers of people trying to get a 'decisive' advantage is increasing. Its called an arms race. thanks for being of the participants :( Chris Whittington > >So I don't see how I have "gone right past..." when *if* I get a 766, >I will just barely "catch up" to the leaders... But the chances for a >766 are pretty slim at present, anyway... and I'm not sure we want to >have to deal with the potential dead-machine problem where we would >have to stop in the middle of a game to switch to our /500 alpha should >one of the other two break down. We might simply elect to stick with >the 500 for the whole event... > > >> >> <--Will-->
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.