Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 17:42:16 07/02/02
Which computer chess tournaments have hardware limitations and which are "anything goes"? To me, a tournament between computers where "anything goes" is meaningless. If it is a computer vs. human, then that is something entirely different I think. What does taking a super computer to a tournament and winning against (possibly superior) engines running on slower hardware prove? To me it doesn't prove anything other than you had the money to win a tournament. To me that doesn't imply that any engine was better than another if it's anything goes. IBM could build another super computer and run an alpha-beta search with piece-square table evaluation and win the "world championship", and it hasn't proved that it was the best engine. Is anyone else turned off my a competition between computers where it's open hardware? I don't think it proves a thing as far as which engine is better. I guess it depends which aspect you are interestd in. If you're interested in hardware, then you probably like the open hardware competitions. If you're interested in AI in computer chess, then you're probably more likely to enjoy an equal hardware competition. To me a competition that can be bought doesn't mean anything. It might as well just be a bidding process to see who is the next "champion". Any thoughts? Russell
This page took 0.01 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.