Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 04:23:45 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 04:56:21, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >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? This argument of 'you did it too' and 'you did it too, so you can't talk' is all very well if you want ot play word games, but it is NO ARGUMENT. Your moral position has to stand all by itself, not leaning on somebody else's supposedly bad action. Chris > >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.