Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:59:43 10/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 09:41:19, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On October 22, 1997 at 08:59:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 22, 1997 at 05:00:26, Thorsten Czub wrote: >> >>>>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. >>>> >>>>Kind of silly that again this tournament is first a search for the best >>>>hardware and then to the best software. >>>> >>>>Certainly there will be another way to associate programs and hardware >>>>in some >>>>other kind of competition. >>>> >>>>Jean-Christophe >>> >>>Right. If ICCA is not willing to give exact limitations concerning >>>groups, status and speed of machines, there will be other >>>events/locations/organisations to deal with the problem ! >> >>that's pretty funny, in fact. It is *not* the ICCA that makes these >>rules of course... they were formulated by the participants over many >>years. You might also notice that the commercial programs *always* run >>on something faster than the base machine supplied for the event. So I >>have no idea who you are criticizing here, just don't criticize *me* for >>"following". Criticize Mark, Ed, Frans, et. al. Check out *their* >>machines >>in past events. Then you'll see why I think this is funny. Someone not >>knowing what is going on would get the impression that Bruce and I have >>started a technology war. We didn't *start* anything at all... > >No, they just escalated to poision gas, and then had a de facto arms >limitation agreement. You then took it to nuclear. > >This thing went in stages with de facto pauses. YOU guys with the alphas >are the ones who've started a NEW ROUND of arms race. > >Chris Maybe we didn't *start* anything at all. Just maybe we *finished* it. One possible and sensible measure for machines could be a "CraftyMark" since everyone can get a copy. Run it on a machine we like for the tournament, on a specific position test, with a specific hash table size, and take the NPS. And say "anyone can use any machine that doesn't exceed a CraftyMark of N" Won't work however, because Crafty might do poorly on some architectures and give that machine an advantage when it runs a different program twice as fast as mine. But it is still interesting that you see the gap between the best machine there, a 766mhz alpha, and the K6/233 as that big, when I can remember people using 8 mhz 6502-variants while competing with a 40mhz 68040. That was *much* more significant. Probably a factor of 16x or so when you count 8 bits vs 32 bits.
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.