Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:26:17 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 04:32:41, Chris Whittington wrote: > >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 same argument as ever, eh ? just because it was done before doesn't mean it should be done now ........ Bored also. Bob
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.