Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:07:45 02/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2004 at 19:37:19, Jasmine Baer wrote: >On February 01, 2004 at 19:19:28, Mike Byrne wrote: > >>On February 01, 2004 at 15:27:34, Dave Kuntzsch wrote: >> >>>On February 01, 2004 at 15:05:02, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>On February 01, 2004 at 13:42:03, C McClain Morris, Jr. wrote: >>>> >>>>>Commercial or not, this is a strong program. >>>> >>>>But it takes twice the processing power like a Quad Opteron to compete against >>>>Fritz 8, or Shredder 8 on a single processor :-) >>> >>>That's the fallacy of CCT. If everyone is running on a different machine, what's >>>being proven? >> >>Why a "fallacy" -- is every race car identically the same in every autorace. >>Are skier racers asked to ski on indentical skis ? Are runners require to wear >>identical racing shoes? Do jockeys compete on identical horses? etc etc. >> >>The hardware is part of the competition. In fact where there is usually >>hardware or equipment in competive events, the equipement /hardware choice is >>usually part of the competition. it's just the way it is - Bob has been >>planning for the fast 64 bit , multiple CPU machine for a long time - anybody >>could have "planned" for that scenario - Bob just happens to be one of the few. > >One wouldn't show up to a top-fuel funny car race with a gas-powered 4 cylinder >engine. One wouldn't show up to a World Cup Slalom wearing skis designed for >the downhill. One wouldn't show up for a 10K road race wearing spikes designed >for the track. And last, but not least, a jockey wouldn't show up for a >Kentucky Derby qualifying race on one of the Budweiser Clydesdales. > >I would like to see the computer chess championship held with the following >divisions: > >1. Single CPU - uses the "average" CPU that consumers can obtain at that given >moment. Even years = AMD Odd years = Intel Used to be done. Died for lack of interest. Look up "uniform platform computer chess tournament". Nobody cared, basically. > >2. Dual CPU same as above > >3. Open Division - anything goes. > I see no real reason for 2. You could make a case for 1 cpu vs N cpus, but that doesn't strike me as very reasonable, since some choose to work on SMP algorithms that take time to develop and debug, while others choose to work on a non-SMP program and spend their time on the basic chess part of things... Both are important. SMP programs demonstrate why. >Obviously these divisions could be refined, but I think the idea could run.
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.