Author: Roberto Waldteufel
Date: 18:42:52 07/17/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 17, 1998 at 15:57:14, Don Dailey wrote: >On July 17, 1998 at 13:49:55, Roberto Waldteufel wrote: > >> >>On July 16, 1998 at 22:17:47, Don Dailey wrote: >> >>> [snip] >>>I like your idea a lot, as a separate event called the "World >>>computer chess programmers contest" as you suggest. However >>>I don't think it should REPLACE the WMCCC. To make YOUR >>>suggested event fair (to test the algorithms and quality of >>>the ideas) you would probably not want to allow assembly >>>language programs as that tends to be grossly unfair to >>>the other platforms being developed on. I really think >>>you would have to specify a single machine to do this >>>correctly and require the programs to be ANSI C. The >>>platform should probably be Alpha's if they are available >>>as they are the hottest machines for chess right now. And >>>it wouldn't be fair for someone who is developing on INTEL >>>for instance to face a competitor who has his own ALPHA at >>>home and writes assembly code for it. >>>Also the machines should be supplied and be exactly the same >>>so there is no issue of who can afford to bring what. >>> >>>But you can see there are a lot of logistical problems here. >>> >>> >>>- Don >> >> >>Hi Don, >> >>The more restrictions you add, the more programmers are excluded. I program in >>32-bit compiled Basic, and tweak intensively used code with Assembler, on a >>Pentium 333, so I guess that would disqualify me on three counts? I don't think >>there can be much argument that Assembler is best for performance, but harder to >>program in. So if a programmer accepts the challenge and puts in the extra >>effort to write an Assembler program that does exactly the same as an eqivalent >>C program, but twice as fast, surely this is a greater programming achievement? >>I don't think it is possible to completely separate "programming" from hardware. >>Programmers and programs exist only because of the hardware that supports them. >>To my mind, the "best chess programmer" is hardware dependant. It is about >>squeazing best possible chess out of a given hardware configuration, and as such >>I think that the "best programmer" of an Alpha is a different thing from the >>"best programmer" of an Intel. And in both cases, the programmer that writes an >>efficient Assembler program is likely to be the one to achieve the necessary >>efficiency,regardless of hardware. >> >>If it is not to be "anything goes" in terms of programming language, you get >>into a minefield of who to allow and who to exclude. What's wrong with Pascal, >>for instance? In the format you suggest, it should be called the "Chess >>C-programmer's Championship"! >> >>I don't care if I am outclassed by faster hardware - I have nothing to prove, >>and my opponent has everything to lose. I relish the opportunity to pit my >>creation against the best opposition it can get. You don't improve by playing >>easy games. My program is certainly not strong enough to qualify for a >>restricted entry WCCC, but it is getting better bit by bit, and the more games >>it gets, the more ideas I get of what needs to be worked on. >> >>Best wishes, >>Roberto > >I wasn't really that serious about making everyone use some >particular language. I was just taking the idea of fairness >a little farther than you are. > >You complain that this kind of tournament would EXCLUDE you since >your program in written in Basic with assembly. Maybe this helps >you understand how I feel about having any restrictions. I am >in the same boat with the format you suggest. It is interesting >to note that your suggestion works quite nicely in your favor >and my own distaste of these restriction work nicely in my favor! > >But you would not be excluded from such an event any more that >I would be excluded from your event. You would just have to >adapt your program (rewrite in C.) To compete in your event >I could bring my program as is, or completely rewrite it to >give me a small chance of winning. > >Does any one of these scenarios seem fair to you? > >But in a way, your suggestion IS fair. If you specify in advance >exactly what hardware is allowed and all the rules, everyone >has the same chance and can choose to enter or not. But one >really big problem is that we don't have enough tournaments >as it is. Segmenting and restricting the very few we do have >strikes me as a really bad idea. > >Having said that, I would love to see any tournament and would >probably show up even if I didn't like the format. > >- Don Hi Don, I was not actually suggesting a specific format, only arguing against language restrictions. I would rather not see anybody excluded on any grounds at all. I would certainly not expect anybody to learn a new language and rewrite (and debug!) a complex piece of software, possibly without any performance enhancement to show for it, simply to achieve comparability with programs whose authors are more used to C and use it by choice. I was not trying to suggest that Cilkchess should be forced to use slow hardware if there is faster available - quite the contrary. I can see the idea behind a uniform hardware event, but it doesn't really worry me one way or the other. It would favour me, but exclude, or at least disadvantage others, and I don't want that. I guess it all depends whether you are looking for the best program or the best program-hardware combination, but for me the main attraction is not that my program might win, but rather the opportunity to meet a lot of other programmers who share my interest in computer chess. I wouldn't mind losing to a Cray, or some other super-computer, but I would mind being forced to write in C. I find chess is difficult enough even when I use the language I am used to and understand. Best wishes, Roberto
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.