Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 06:12:08 08/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 27, 2000 at 10:23:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 27, 2000 at 02:01:20, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On August 26, 2000 at 23:58:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On August 26, 2000 at 21:14:00, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >> >>(snip) >> >>>>>Restricting things to one piece of hardware is stifling, not leveling. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't see why competing with equal weapons, especially when it is the platform >>>>99% of people on earth is using, is such a problem. >>> >>>Because you are wrong. 99% of the people on earth don't have the same >>>processor at the same clock frequency with the same amount of memory and >>>disk space. Some still have P6/200's (I have one at home and a lab full >>>at the office). Some still use 486's. A few have 1ghz PIII's. So the >>>world is _not_ uniform platform. If you stick on X86, do you let 600 and >>>1.3 ghz processors in? Do you make everybody use 1ghz processors? Is >>>that what everybody in the world is using? >>> >>>I think this line of reasoning is simply flawed, in a very basic way. >> >> >> >>Yes and no. >> >>Follow my reasonning: >> >>99% of people are using the x86 architecture, so let's make it a x86 platform >>event. So it means something to most people. > > >I have a P6/200 at home. Explain to me how it is any different for you to >play on a PIII/1ghz which will cost around 3,000 dollars, and my playing on >a digital alpha, which will cost about 4,000 dollars? Both have no relationship >to my computer at home. Both cost a significant amount of money. As far as the >price difference between them, just compare a gateway/Dell price to an IBM price >and you will get the same difference. > > > >> >>Then if we make a x86 platform event, so why don't we make it a uniform speed >>uniform platform event? If somebody agrees to run his program on the same >>platform as the other ones, why wouldn't he agree to run at the same speed? >>Unless he knows that his program is weaker, of course. > >Or unless he knows that his program was designed for a particular architecture, >and running it on the PC would not provide optimal performance. ChessMachine >is one obvious example. Old versions of programs written in assembly are >another one. Who in their right mind would prefer to program a X86 in >assembly when they had the choice of (say) a M680x0, or a sparc, or an >alpha? > >So either everyone has to start with the X86 as the target platform, or they >get excluded from such events... > >> >>One thing leads to another. Once we agree to run on a given platform, it seems >>natural that everybody runs at the same speed. >> >>Because what most people are interested in is "what program is the best", not >>"who is able to put the bucks and come with the fastest hardware". > > >This is not true. Just check with the operators of chess engines on ICC. IE >people like Lonnie bought kryo-type machines, just to have the fastest box they >could get their hands on. There is always a group of people looking for max >performance. But this still doesn't address the hideously stifling approach >that using a uniform platform would address. IE who would have ever tried >bitmaps if 32 bit machines were all we would ever have? > > > >> >> >> >> >>>>Maybe you forget that there are people out there using our chess programs. And >>>>these people are using x86 computers, mostly. >>> >>>So? In the USA, most people drive a GM product. Do we not allow Chrysler and >>>Ford into the auto races based on that reason? >> >> >> >>Your comparisons with cars and sports are getting boring. >> >>Come on, I know you can do better. I could have predicted your move... >> >>Can I help you? Why don't you take for example the evolution of the animal >>species? >> >>Obviously they have not chosen to be "uniform platform". Aha! So uniform >>platform is stupid. Period. > > >I don't see any uniform platform. I see warm-blooded animals, cold-blooded >animals, animals that eat meat, animals that only eat plants, animals that walk >on two feet, animals that walk on four feet, animals that can run 80 miles per >hour, animals that can barely run 4 miles per hour. You _really_ think that >the animal kingom is "single platform". They all are based on carbon, all have >some form of blood. Hey, computers are based on silicon. All use electrons. >Is that a trend? Based on your comparison with animals, all computers are a >uniform-platform. > > > >> >>But anyway, all these comparisons miss the point. >> >> >>My point is that most people are interested to know how programs perform on the >>kind of computers they have. > >OK... but we aren't showing them that. We aren't showing the folks with >P200/mmx's how the programs would compare there. We won't be showing the >_majority_ of people how the programs would compare on their specific type >and speed of processor, only how the programs do on one particular architecture >(X86) at some specific speed that is probably way faster than what they have at >home. I have been tempted to comment several times on this thread. I am a program purchaser. I have many of top current programms. Bob I find my self in general not in favour of your thoughts on uniform platform. The above paragraph in particuliar is flawed. When we buy a program It is in _our interest_ that all are playing on the same platform. The fact that the uniform platform would most likely be running at higher processor speed is ok, _it is uniform_ So if all I can afford is a ole P200 that, is my restriction. But I am left to guessing if I have to make a choice between one program running on a super cooled widget or a 8 way Xeon etc verses others running on inferior hardware. Most of these programs that are entered are _marketed for sales_. That means it is important to consider what is best for us. Your non uniform platform has it's merrit. I am very interested in the best performing Computer chess against human GM's. Here lets take our best shot as in the DB vs KC. Regards Wayne > > > >> >>Let's take a PC of reasonnable power, give it to everybody, and see what >>happens. >> >>The idea is simple. I can understand it is not to your taste, but would >>certainly help to get more attention from the public audience. > > >I don't see why public interest would increase. Again, you would think that >if this was something that everybody wanted to see, the ACM events would have >evolved into uniform platform. Don Beal used to run one, but quit doing so. >For lack of interest, I assume. > > > > > >> >> >> >> Christophe
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.