Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:52:16 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2003 at 10:35:20, Uri Blass wrote: >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. _wrong_. Hiarcs is a top commercial program. It only uses one cpu. Rebel is a top commercial program. It only uses one cpu. Tiger is a top commercial program. It only uses one cpu. ChessMaster is a top commercial program. It only uses one CPU. Mchess is a top commercial program. It only uses one CPU. Need I go farther? The original question was, simply put "What US program would be competitive." The answer was "Crafty on big hardware." End of the discussion. From there it simply went to hell in a handbasket. > >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.