Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:17:55 02/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2004 at 23:46:36, Jasmine Baer wrote: >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. That is all _any_ tournament proves. It says _nothing_ about which program is actually the best program...
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.