Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 01:32:41 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 17:59:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. Same argument as ever, eh ? They did it before so we can do it now ........ Bored. Chris
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.