Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 17:13:04 11/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2003 at 20:08:23, Russell Reagan wrote: >On November 20, 2003 at 18:44:18, martin fierz wrote: > >>so? in what way does that make my statement wrong? . >> >>of course, if you give one of those american programs a huge hardware advantage, >>then it has it's chance - that is pretty clear! > >So how is your statement correct then? WCCC _is_ open hardware you know. In an >open hardware event you must take into consideration the hardware that is being >used. By your approach, Deep Blue wouldn't be a contender because you limit your >view to software in an open hardware event, which makes no sense. > > >>if i ran my rather weak program on a box which is 1000x faster than yours you >>would lose. does this make me proud? does this make my program better than >>yours?? go figure... > >The difference is, Bob _could_ get a very powerful machine. If you ran your >program on hardware 1000x faster than Bob's, and your program won every game, >then yes, it would be better than Bob's at the WCCC. > > >>i talked about *programs*. not about the combination of hardware+software. i >>don't know why you do it, but you seem to deliberately misunderstand any >>sentence i write ;-) > >No one is misunderstanding what you are writing. Maybe you aren't saying what >you are meaning to say, but what you're saying isn't correct. You say that the >US doesn't have any programs that could contend for the WCCC title, which is >clearly false as Bob has shown. > >For some reason you want to seperate software and hardware, and that isn't the >reality of the WCCC, which is what we are discussing here. > >This is going to degenerate quickly if you don't make it clear what you mean. >Don't say, "no US program could compete for the WCCC title," when you mean to >say, "no US program using <insert hardware here> could compete for the WCCC >title." You don't say what you mean, then you say people misinterpret what you >said. How are we supposed to know what you meant to say? We can't read your >mind. > >Even if you want to say that "no US program can compete in the WCCC on certain >hardware", then you are free to say it, but it's really irrelevant, since WCCC >is open hardware. Well said.. I hadn't the patience to respond earlier for which I have learned not to respond at all. :) I had thought about consulting a deck of tarrow cards to bring some clarity to his point (or "cheapo" as he calls it.) -elc.
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.