Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 17:27:45 04/29/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2001 at 13:58:29, Uri Blass wrote:
>On April 29, 2001 at 13:16:26, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>You are right that you did not say that you did not work on SMP but the
>impression that a lot of readers got was that you did not work on SMP.
>
>This was the impression that I got.
>
>You could generate a different impression by saying that you have plans to use
>SMP tiger in the future but not to do it commercial.
Note that the decision to not invite Tiger in the qualifier has been based on an
impresion too.
That's were the problem started. Very poor organisation, so poor you need to ask
yourself if by chance it hasn't been made on purpose!
>>I also said that I could change my mind if the market demands it.
>
>I thought at that time that changing your mind means starting to work on SMP.
This is not what I meant.
I have worked on SMP last year. I have some SMP code that has not been activated
since last year, and that's the reason why I asked for a little delay in order
to reactivate this code.
I'm also working on another project (Tiger related) which for me has (had)
higher priority.
> 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?
>
>I do not blame you for it but I do not understand what you can earn by keeping
>it as a secret.
>
>Knowing that tiger is going to be SMP in the next tournament cannot help fritz
>or Junior to get better results against tiger.
But I did not try to keep this secret. That's not the spirit at all!
I did not mention it, but the idea was not to keep a secret!
I said SMP was not my priority when I have been asked, that's all.
I'm working all the time on the Tigers engines, and I'm adding all kinds of
stuffs in these engine. If I don't tell you everything I do, it's not because I
like secrecy...
>>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.
><snipped>
>>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.
>
>I agree.
>They should also invite Crafty and Ferret to participate but in this case there
>is no problem because Bob and Bruce did not want to participate.
It IS a problem, because the organizers did not even ask.
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.