Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:16:26 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 10:56:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On April 29, 2001 at 04:01:32, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On April 29, 2001 at 03:39:53, Bruce Moreland wrote:
>>
>>>It seems clear why it wasn't invited to participate:
>>>
>>>1) The organizer is going to use a multiprocessor machine.
>>>2) Fritz and Junior run on a multiprocessor machine.
>>>3) Tiger is known to not run on such a machine.
>>>4) Tiger is very strong, but if it is stronger than Junior or Fritz, it's
>>>probably not stronger by much.
>>>5) A multiprocessor machine should produce a significant performance boost.
>>>6) It is hoped that the event will produce an "accurate" winner.
>>>
>>>If you allow these points, you can make a case that Tiger on a single processor
>>>can't be stronger than Junior or Fritz on a multi.
>>
>>I understood that tiger can use more than one processor.
>>
>
>
>This is speculation. Ed/Christophe did two things wrong, _assuming_ they have
>an SMP tiger:
>
>1. Neither mentioned it _anywhere_. They chose to "keep it a secret" for
>some supposed "surprise value" at a tournament in the future;
Isn't it our right to do so?
What's next? Accusations that we keep our tournament books secret?
>2. Christophe has gone on record _several times_ saying SMP is not needed, it
>is the "wrong way" and so forth.
I have said several times that I don't see SMP becoming the main stream in
computing, not even in chess computing. This is still my opinion.
I said several times I had no plan to release a SMP version of Tiger. I did NOT
say I did not have one. I did NOT say I have never worked on SMP.
I also said that I could change my mind if the market demands it. Last time I
said so was in a live interview on the CSS forum. Go to to this forum, go to the
page where the 16 hours interview has been reported, and you will find my words
about this.
It was BTW before I heard about the Kramnik match.
>They chose secrecy over openness, and now to complain is disingenuous to the
>max. BG is suppose to be able to read minds?
Bob, as a supporter of the Deep Blue team, you certainly know a lot about the
secrecy around the IBM thing.
And now you would blame me if I do the same?
So it's OK if IBM keeps informations secret, but if I do it it's not OK?
>I have already stated my opinion about the qualifier previously. But not
>inviting RG (IMHO) is _not_ a point that should be argued. If the company
>chose to keep the product secret, they made a mistake as we now know. Too
>bad...
No.
The organizers have made a mistake.
The challengers did not have to be commercial products. If so, Deep Blue would
not have been invited.
So even if I do not have a commercial SMP version of Tiger, the organizers
should AT LEAST have asked us. Because participating with a commercial version,
clearly, is not required.
Actually what they should have done is a PUBLIC announcement about the match,
they should have given all the required conditions to participate, and they
should have told chess programmers/companies that they could submit an
application form.
That would have required some OPENESS from their side.
Instead, all has been done in the dark, and as a result everybody has a bad
opinion of this match.
Christophe
This page took 0.02 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.