Author: Michel van der List
Date: 08:26:48 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
I'm not quoting Chris message in it's entirety. I hope this will not distort the point he was trying to make. If it does, I certainly did not meant it to... On October 23, 1997 at 10:51:28, Chris Whittington wrote: >As would be one footprint of any large rogue elephant you care to put in >your office. Size doesn't matter any more ...... :) Not sure I understand this. I was merely arguing it would qualify as a 'micro' in my mind. Guess your definition is different. >>Now that Chris is bringing a pII/300, seems to me that he is within >>20-30% of what Bob/Bruce are bringing (can't see that 766Mhz thing >>happening...), although through a round-about way. > >No, if Thorsten gets the p2 300 (which is not sure). It has to be built >and paid for, this process can still go wrong before Friday. > >Anyway, apparently I'm going to be 20% or so above the K6 233's. Bob and >Bruce have some further unknown but significant factor on top of this; >and the critical issue is their advantage over the K6 233's; not some >stepped advantage system relating to all the intermediate variations >there might be. The figures I saw were: Bruce M.: >With my program, running an Enorex 500 mhz Alpha (1mb cache), it appears >that the Alpha is 1.5x faster than my P6/200. This is based upon a run >of the LCTI test at 210 seconds per position (98 minutes total). >Running on a Polywell 533 mhz Alpha (2mb cache), mine goes 1.75x faster >than my P6/200, based upon the same test. Bob H: >we have K6/233's running on ICC. they are 15-20% faster than my P6/200. >so let's call it 1.2X for simplicity. >Remember, their main gripe was always referring to fritz on a P2 300. >THEY COULD HAVE JUST GONE TO THIS LEVEL INSTEAD OF WAY BEYOND IT. Well, what does this mean? Are you suggesting that if I were to write a program that is just as fast on a 500Mhz alpha as it is on a K6/233 then it's OK? What is your definition of a micro? Bruce argued before (and I agree with him on that point), that you should not exclude certain hardware from the event. It does seem to me, that the 500Mhz alpha *is* a micro, although not one a typical person has on his/her desk. I don't think you can argue that excluding a machine x because it runs program y 3 times faster then on machine z which is the provided machine is fair. If I were to magically come up with a $2000 desktop micro which runs my imaginative program 10x faster than a k6/233, whould you exclude that computer? >>How about burying the hatchet on this one > >You msut be joking. Well I was not. Seems that there is not a whole lot more to be discussed. Off course now I'm discussing things... >Where should this burial take place ? May I suggest two hatchets, one in >Bob's alpha and the other in Bruce's :) As long as it is not mine :-) >As Bruce says, essentially its a huge mess. Who gets charged what is >allegedly 'wrapped up' in some sort of rule system, but, in effect, the >charging is entirely politically based. It was considered who money >could be extracted from, and then rules made up to cover it. They made >very sure this year with their rule change that there was no way out for >me, published chess program or no published chess program. Well, I have no argument with that at all. However, I would be interested in seeing your definition of a 'micro', since just saying '20-30%' speed difference does not define much IMHO. I gave you mine (however vague).
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.