Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 07:19:23 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2003 at 09:39:35, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 21, 2003 at 08:43:28, Matthew Hull wrote: > >>On November 21, 2003 at 05:32:12, Amir Ban wrote: >> >>>On November 20, 2003 at 23:57:50, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>>On November 20, 2003 at 19:21:56, Amir Ban wrote: >>>> >>>>>I guess if Crafty were given knight odds it would also have a fair chance at >>>>>winning, but what exactly does that prove ? >>>> >>>>Come on Amir... >>>> >>>>Do you really believe that winning the WCCC with superior hardware is on par >>>>with winning the WCCC when given knight odds? >>>> >>>>I thought the WCCC was about finding out what was the best chess playing >>>>computer, hardware and software combination. >>> >>>Bob didn't say "I can get better hardware than you guys". He said "If I come >>>with big hardware and you don't, I can beat you". >>> >>>This is the same as needing a handicap to compete. >> >> >>Is it the World Computer Chess Championship or not? It's not the World Software >>Chess Championship. >> >>If it runs on a computer, then there is no issue of handicaps. >> >>Your attempt at obfuscation is exposed. :) >> >>Matt > >No > >Bob did not suggest that everyone use the best hardware but that Crafty will use >the best hardware that it can use when Junior is using only one cpu inspite of >the fact that it is able to use better hardware with more than one processor. My guess is that crafty is MORE scalable hardware-wise than Amir's project. This addresses the original point brought about by some, and echoed by Amir, namely that the idea that no North American projects are competitive because they are all well down the SSDF list, so why suggest that the ICGAs ignoring the concerns of potential American participants is any loss to the event in question. The fact is, in an open hardware competition like the WCCC, American projects ARE competitive. That is just a plain fact you are attempting to ignore, IMO. > >What Bob suggested is giving Crafty an unfair advantage and not trying to find >the best combination of software and hardware. This relates only to Amir's cutting remark that crafty could not win with a 100:1 speed advantage. It is a side issue. Maybe they will resolve it OTB, which would be fun. :) Regards, Matt > >For the relevant post see >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?328909 > >Uri
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.