Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:28:26 07/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2002 at 20:42:16, Russell Reagan wrote: >Which computer chess tournaments have hardware limitations and which are >"anything goes"? Only the WCCC is "anything goes". WMCCC events require a microprocessor based machine, although they have started allowing multiple cpu micros in where they were not allowed a couple of years back. > >To me, a tournament between computers where "anything goes" is meaningless. It isn't "meaningless". It just means you have two degrees of freedom: The programs are different and the hardware is non-uniform also. It is therefore difficult to decide whether the program is better, or the program is worse but the hardware offsets this, etc... It does find "the baddest boy on the block" however, which is the goal of the WCCC event. IE "top fuel" at the drag strip. Use two engines if you want. Use whatever you can afford. Exotic fuels. Exotic parts. Dual superchargers. This is only about "who is the fastest down the quarter mile?" > 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. That isn't the goal. It is to find out "which program/machine _combination_ is the strongest computer chess system on the planet". > 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 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.