Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 10:03:10 07/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
Before I get started I would like to say that I am up for anything. I'd be willing to show up at at a WMCC, a WMCCC, a uniform platform event, or anything else. Anyone who wants to hold a tournament has my encouragement and support. That said, I'm going to pick at a few points. On July 16, 1998 at 13:06:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >Game/30 with fisher 30s is fine. Could we all agree on this? I guess some will >have problems because they didn't implement fisher clock (it's my case!), but we >have plenty of time to do it before the tournament. 30 30 is a fine time control, but I would like to mention a few things. Fischer time control is designed to allow good play in endings and prevent the necessity of adjournments. This has some drawbacks, in that a game can go on for a tremendous length of time. In computer chess you will sometimes see a 200 move game with a decisive result. That's potentially over four hours. And if you are going to have a break for adjudication, you might as well set it up beforehand, and use a normal tournament time control that gets you there. The big advantage of normal tournament time controls is that the games can be stopped in finite time. If a game is still contentious at that point, it can be continued while everyone else is asleep. If it's not contentions, the tournament director can strongly suggest a resignation or draw offer, and if that doesn't work, he can simply end the game as he sees fit. >Let's limit to 32 entries. Why not doing "qualification rounds" before the >event? Maybe we could ask several testers to run these rounds for amateur >programs. I'm thinking about Torsten Schoop for example, but there are others. >Maybe they would be glad to help. More players is more fun, but 32 is probably fun enough. I don't think anyone should have to send their program in to someone they don't know, in order to qualify. If this is held in the US, you'll probably lose some of the Germans, and that should keep the numbers down a bit. >Most of the programmers that have a "big iron" program have also a microcomputer >program. It is your case, Bob. I suppose Don also has a micro version of >CilkChess, or can easily do a one processor version. > >I don't know about you, but I'm personnaly mainly interested in knowing how my >PROGRAM compares to other programs, and not how my HARDWARE compares to others. In at least some of the tournaments, it should be absolutely anything goes. If this is one of those, no problem, I'll probably just show up with my Alpha. >That's why I would like to see something close to a uniform platform event. I >know this cannot be the case, because we already have at least 2 classes: PC >programs and Alpha programs. > >But maybe we could set a limit in the clock speed. Say 400MHz for x86 computers >and 600MHz for Alphas, so the championship does not turn into a race for the >fastest hardware. The numbers can be discussed. I will probably take issue with any concrete proposal to limit microcomputer hardware, because there will be problems with any way you can think of. I'd be happy to compete in a uniform hardware event, but we all know what the platform will be. It will be an Intel-compatible machine, probably slightly off the leading edge. Boy, everyone will flock to see that. >That's also why I would like to see the championship limited to one processor >per computer. > >The problem, as in previous WMCCC, is that every competitor will have to bring >his own hardware. For example, I will have to travel from Guadeloupe with my >computer "on my back". Worse, my current fastest computer is a K5-100MHz. So I >will have to purchase a faster one to compete. Get used to this. My computer boxes end up thoroughly coated in tape and various tags and stickers written in multiple languages. When you buy a computer, make sure it is 110/220 volt switchable. Bringing your own computer to these events is really really awful if you have a one person team. >What are we going to evaluate in this championship? The programmer's skill to >write a good chess program, or the programmer's skill to find a good sponsor? The latter is true in any open hardware event. Bob Hyatt has an "in" with Cray, so he gets a Cray, and I don't. This is patently unfair. Where is my Cray? No, it's fine that he has this relationship with Cray. When you go to an event that is not uniform platform, you have to accept that the commercials will always run on the fastest hardware they can get, there there will be those who overclock their hardware, and these days who knows what else will show up. When it's totally open hardware, you gotta expect to see really big stuff. >If we rule that the computers will be one processor running up to 400/600MHz, I >think we will have a better idea of who are the best programmers (hence the name >"World Microcomputer Chess Programmers Championship"). I just thought of another problem with putting a mhz cap on things. If you put a mhz cap that is higher than that of the supplied machines, but lower than that of cutting edge machines, you may nail someone who has delayed a machine purchase. Let's say we put a 300 mhz cap on this event. That would suit me fine, I have a 300 mhz machine that I bought last November, right after the prices started coming down. This machine was the best buy at that time. It would thoroughly screw you though. You have a 100 mhz machine. You need to upgrade. If you had a choice from all the machines you can buy, would you buy a 300 mhz machine at this point? I sure wouldn't. So for you, a 300 mhz machine would be an extravagance. If you got one at all it would probably be through a sponsor, so we're back where we started. >In Paris, we had AMD providing K6-200 computers. Can't we get in touch with >them, or with Intel, to see if they could provide computers? > >If we manage to get computers, couldn't we do a close-to-uniform platform event? >I don't care if my opponent has a 50% faster Alpha CPU, but what if he has a 5x >faster computer because I had to bring my old K5-100 on my back? If you show up with a K5/100, prepare to get smoked, no matter what others might bring, because what they bring will be faster. I think that people think that Alphas are really exotic because of the high mhz number and because they are seen as special-purpose because they are not made by Intel. For purposes of comparison, I believe that my program would run the same speed on a 533 mhz Alpha as it would on a 400 mhz P2. A 600 might compare with a P2/450. bruce
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.