Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:55:15 01/18/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2004 at 09:35:31, Frank Phillips wrote: >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 ;-) OK. Point taken. But that won't happen in cct-6. :) > > >> >>(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.