Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:07:53 07/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1998 at 19:56:05, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On July 12, 1998 at 17:01:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>Someone didn't think very clearly. The reason the WCCC (and ACM) events >>have been held partially on weekends was to make it easier for big-iron >>computer chess programs to enter. We never had any problem with time on >>saturday/sunday, but monday-friday was always a real problem, because that's >>when these computers are heavily used. >> >>The WCCC does *not* need 32 entries. It should be limited to 16 at most, >>and that's not hard to do. There is no need in making it "open to everyone" >>because that only drives up the number of rounds. with 16 programs, 4 rounds >>will get a clear 1st place (ignoring draws) while 5 rounds gets a clear 1-4 >>places (again ignoring draws). The micro-based programs will not have a >>problem, but there's not a lot of chance in getting top-of-the-line big >>iron for 5 days, 9 rounds, which means rounds in *prime-time* during the >>day. > >I think there needs to be a balance here, between those big iron guys who get >limited support from their sponsors, and people who have more or less unlimited >access to machines. > >I think you were bothered last time because they raised the number of rounds >from four to five, for the same reasons you expressed in this post. > >I understand that it is hard to get time on these machines. And I understand >that these machines are very strong entries. > >But everyone's time is valuable. It is not a very productive use of (for >instance) my time to fly Europe or Asia for five games. The desire for more >games has been expressed at every WMCCC that I have gone to, and it was also >expressed at the '95 WCCC, if I recall. > >With 16 entrants I probably still get to go, but it is close. Consider for a >moment how many commercial entries there are that have won some form of world >title in recent years. If I barely get to go, consider for a moment who >doesn't. > >I think that four rounds is *way* unbalanced. Five is still pretty bad. > >I think there might come a time when the big-iron entrants need to either get >better sponsorship, or determine that it is impossible to get sufficient >sponsorship in the post-DB era, and admit that that game is over. > >bruce I believe that I have pretty well done this. IE Cray Blitz hasn't played since 1995 in Cape May, and probably won't play again due to the headache. But a Cray isn't the only issue. A big alpha is non-trivial to obtain. If the WCCC doesn't cater to some "big-iron" it becomes totally pointless, and the WMCCC is the event that should be held, because the WCCC will degrade to being just another WMCCC event if all you can get are micros. Fortunately (or unfortunately, as the case may be) big iron has become rare. In fact, Deep Blue and Cray Blitz may be the last of a generation, although Sun Phoenix and perhaps Cilkchess also fit this mold to a lesser extent (when you look at what the machines cost and the scheduling issues). But there aren't many left, maybe there are none excepting cilkchess now. But it's sad to see this happen, because I can tell you that a program running on a Super is one heck of a lot stronger than the same program on a micro, assuming the program knows how to do parallel processing and can take advantage of whatever architectural features the super offers it.
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.