Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 14:53:21 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 21, 2003 at 10:59:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 21, 2003 at 10:19:23, Matthew Hull 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. >> >> >>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. :) > >I do not see where he said that Crafty could not win with that time advantage. >If you agree to play it does not mean that you are sure of not losing. > >Uri Sorry, but that is un-parsable by me...
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.