Author: Uri Blass
Date: 07:35:20 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2003 at 10:25:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. >> > >I didn't suggest a _thing_ about what hardware Junior should use. Why, exactly, >do you think Amir is doing a parallel search? Do you suppose it has _anything_ >to do with obtaining a hardware advantage? > > >>What Bob suggested is giving Crafty an unfair advantage and not trying to find >>the best combination of software and hardware. > >I didn't suggest any such thing. I answered the question "what US program >would be competitive in this year's WCCC event." Crafty on good hardware >is more than "just competitive" and that's _all_ I said. You have _never_ >heard me complain about what hardware others have used in the past. Since >my Cray days I have never shown up at a chess tournament with "the best >hardware". Not even at the WMCCC events I have played in. And I didn't >complain one bit that my hardware was slower. That's part of the events, >IMHO. That's why this is called "computer chess". Otherwise we could >all take our algorithms, sit down with pencil and paper and simulate games >as was done in the early 1950's, and see which _algorithm_ is best. You did not mention the word Junior but you clearly suggest to have the top commercial programs on a single CPU box Here are your words: "If you take the top commercial programs running on a single CPU box, and Crafty running on a big Opteron box, I'd claim Crafty has at _least_ as good a chance of winning as any one-cpu program, and probably better chances." The top commercial programs do not play on a single CPU box and this is the point. 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.