Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:27:40 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 06:02:37, jean-christophe WEILL wrote: > In the past, we only tried to follow what the others good competitors >are doing. If you want to have a result and that the other professionnal >competitors arrives with much superior hardware, we have to arrive with >the same hardware, of course. > My point is that I am not that happy with this situation. And as Chris >said this looks like a military side now. Of course, as a professionnal >team, we can afford to come with much superior hardware than amateur, >we do not do it by default that's all. The only reason that it becomes uniform at the very top is that those who want to compete this way *can't* do any better, because they have the *best* they can get. I can't possibly believe that *anyone* reading this would buy a 300 mhz P2 were a 400 mhz P2 available at the same price, just because someone else ran on a 300 mhz P2. I didn't buy the absolute best most expensive hottest newest x86, I bought something else (not even the best most expensive hottest newest Alpha, by the way). A friend of mine reports that his P2/300 is 1.5 times faster than a P6/200, running his program. That seems like a lot, but that is what he reports. My 533 is 1.75 times faster than a P6/200, running my program. 1.75 / 1.50 = 1.17. Just to get this in perspective. I have no idea how fast the 767 is. One of my goals is to figure out the difference between various Alphas. >>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." > > Pascal speaks for himself, not for the team. > I speak for myself, not for the team. No problem. bruce
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.