Author: Jasmine Baer
Date: 20:46:36 02/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2004 at 20:07:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. OK, then. All the contests prove is who puts together the best total package at that given moment, then. It proves that EngineA running on ConfigA played better in TournamentX than EngineB through EngineY playing on whatever platform they run on. Interesting, I guess.
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.