Author: Frank Phillips
Date: 06:35:31 01/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 17, 2004 at 12:32:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 17, 2004 at 09:08:10, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On January 16, 2004 at 23:10:46, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 16, 2004 at 13:19:34, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>On January 16, 2004 at 12:47:56, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 16, 2004 at 12:26:31, Russell Reagan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 16, 2004 at 12:09:45, Tord Romstad wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 16, 2004 at 11:25:29, Will Singleton wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Nice to see you participate, you might just win. :) Also nice to have >>>>>>>>Spiderchess, another first-timer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Gothmog played its first two games against SpiderChess today, and my first >>>>>>>impression is that this engine is rather strong. Both games ended in a >>>>>>>draw, but Gothmog was in serious trouble in both games. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Tord >>>>>> >>>>>>Why don't I see your name on the participation list Tord??? :) >>>>> >>>>>Because I am still not entirely sure I'll be able to participate. I don't >>>>>have any form of Internet connection at my home. In order to participate, >>>>>I would have to stay in my office most of the night (two nights in a row, >>>>>even), and there's a long and expensive taxi drive home when I'm finished. >>>>>There are still good chances that I will participate, though. >>>>> >>>>>How about you? You are also not on the list of participants, as far >>>>>as I can see. :-) >>>>> >>>>>Tord >>>> >>>>Gothmog would be one of the more interesting participants, because it _can_ beat >>>>anyone. A lot of the time its sacrifices are unsound, but even if Bob shows up >>>>with his quad opteron he might lose to Gothmog :) >>>> >>>>anthony >>> >>>I hate to tell you this, but I am almost certainly going to show up with a >>>quad opteron now. Final details with AMD are worked out. They were going to >>>ship the machine, but I have convinced them that a DSL line on their end would >>>be cheaper and they agreed... >>> >>>However, I am old enough and wise enough to _know_ that I can lose to _anybody_ >>>in any given game, good hardware or not. Otherwise we wouldn't need to actually >>>play the event. :) >>> >>>It will be interesting to see it play at 6-10M nodes per second, depending on >>>which CPUs the machine has, but it won't be invincible by any possible >>>measure. You have to look no further than Brutus in Graz to see that quite >>>clearly. :) >> >> >>Just remember what IM Schroeder said about Zappa last tournament - "Its better >>to be lucky than to be good." >> >>We'll see if Zappa can be as lucky in CCT6 as it was CCT5 :) >> >>anthony > >To win one of these you need the following: > >(1) a program that is reliable. IE it doesn't crash, make illegal moves, screw >up time calculations and so forth. It needs to have at least a reasonable >search and evaluation of course. Screwing-up is not necessarily bad ... in some tournaments at least :-) I thnk chessbase commented about the Shredder fiasco at the last WCCC that silly bugs need no longer mean you lose (or do not win). Just leave it to the humans to decide what the 'fair' result should have been ;-) > >(2) decent hardware. Not the fastest, although faster is always better, >but not a 486 either. > >(3) Some opening book preparation to avoid dead lost games or positions your >program simply does not handle well. > >(4) a goodly portion of luck. > >(5) more luck.
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.