Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:56:23 08/01/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 01, 2001 at 11:32:33, Ed Schröder wrote: >On August 01, 2001 at 09:56:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 31, 2001 at 13:53:43, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>On July 31, 2001 at 13:14:04, jefkaan wrote: >>> >>>>On July 31, 2001 at 13:03:31, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>>The event is much less fun for everyone if principle authors don't >> show up. >>>> >>>>absolutely; but on the other hand, a tourn >>>>with different hardware configs can also >>>>be organized easily on Fics or so. >>>> >>>>So imho for such an 'academic'(?) occasion >>>>it would be more encouraging for possible >>>>participants if 'they' would supply the hardware; >>>>i.e. equally fast for all programs.. (so for >>>>the time being i would be against multi-cpu's >>>>unless every program can run on it). >>> >>>I think an extra processor is getting to be like a 100 gigabyte disk. There >>>might be programs that can't take advantage of 100 extra gigabytes, but that's >>>no reason to say that using the space is unfair. >>> >>>It's 2001. We should be vacationing in space by now. If we can't do that, at >>>least let's use machines with two or more processors. Regardless of what this >>>particular event should be, people should be developing for SMP. >>> >>>bruce >> >> >>You can't believe a thing you hear nowadays. Otherwise you encounter this: >> >>A commercial programmer does some detailed (and flawed) public analysis to show >>that SMP is not worth the effort. And then that programmer's program doesn't >>get invited to compete in the "best of the best" event because the event is SMP >>only, and then he complains "but I was working on an SMP version and I had it >>almost ready. Had I known you would only accept SMP programs it _would_ have >>been ready." >> >>How can you make any sense of that? And with that kind of argument, how can >>anyone decide whether SMP is "real" or "memorex"???? > > >Not funny, needless to dig up this issue, and flawed too... > >I know an amateur programmer who for years claimed top chess programs aren't >IM and nowadays still does not believe top chess programs aren't GM. > >Now that is funny.... > >Ed I didn't "dig it up". It was posted less than 6 months ago. And I _still_ don't believe top programs are GMs. When you can show me one with the GM title, I'll believe.
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.