Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:37:32 10/13/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2003 at 03:59:53, Steven Edwards wrote: >On October 12, 2003 at 03:30:13, Rodney Topor wrote: >>On October 11, 2003 at 13:21:03, GuyHaworth wrote: > >>>Given multiple processors on a chip, PCs with FPGA-assist etc., the >>>micro/non-micro divide is becoming less meaningful. Common-platform tournaments >>>seem attractive, but some engines suit a particular platform more than others. >> >>Unless... What about defining a microcomputer in terms of weight. A micro- >>computer is a self-contained computer weighing less than, say, 6 ounces. >>At present, that would lead to a contest between the best programs running >>on Palm OS and PocketPC (and similar) handheld devices. Even if moves were >>currently relayed by hand, this would be an interesting contest now, and a more >>interesting contest in the future... > >Another idea is to classify the competitors by wattage. > >Mainframe entrants would also be charged for air conditioning power >requirements. The "weight" thing used to be done by the ICCA. It was a stupid idea. IE look at a Cray-3 machine. one cubic foot of mostly silicon chips. It would be classed as "smaller" than the typical PC. And then you have the problem of machines like "brutus" (or in the old days, belle and deep thought) that were very small, but incredibly fast for the time. IE deep thought was just a sun work station. Belle was about the size of one of my quad xeons. Using power as a scale would favor (say) CMOS machines. Is that really useful?
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.