Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 01:56:21 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 03:14:32, jean-christophe WEILL wrote: > I was not there but I think it was more fair to let Virtual Chess >having the exact same hardware as Fritz for a playoff between the two >programs. > > If Fritz had a Pentium 166Mhz, I am sure Pascal should not have >switched to a P6 200Mhz. Fritz had a Pentium 200, not a Pentium Pro 200. This was his own choice, he ran slower on the Pentium Pro. But it is not the same machine. Did Pascal use the 166 in the blitz tournament? > My point is that at this tournament, AMD provides enough computer for >all participants. > You can not say : "I do it because others do!" because others will do >it >because you do it. I don't understand your position in light of what you've done in the past. In Paderborn, according to the hardware list in the ICCAJ, you had a 133 rather than the supplied 120, and in Jakarta you had a 166 rather than the supplied 133. I'm sure there were plenty of supplied machines in both cases. So why did you bring one that was a little bit better? It is ethical to achieve a small hardware advantage but not a larger one? Someone asked Pascal why you guys weren't on faster hardware. I don't remember what he said, but I think I would have remembered had he said something like, "we think that is unethical." bruce
This page took 0.01 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.