Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:09:29 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 09:57:04, Daniel Clausen wrote: >On May 19, 2004 at 07:27:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 19, 2004 at 03:35:39, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On May 19, 2004 at 03:02:05, Russell Reagan wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>That is the goal of the WCCC, to have a competition between the best >>>>computerized chess playing entities, not to test which software is the best. >>> >>>Yes, but strictly speaking this would mean that a company selling program XYZ >>>wouldn't be allowed to write WCCC2004 winner on their software package, as it >>>was not the software but software+hardware which actually won the tournament. >>> >>>Sargon >> >>This is a nonsense of course. > >Let me rephrase it: when you play a tournament like WCCC, where the pair HW/SW >is tested and your particular HW/SW combination wins, then it's not "correct" to >silently skip the HW part and just claim your SW part won. > >I guess you still think it's nonsense. If so, you're welcome to be a bit more >specific and say _what exactly_ is nonsense about it. > >Sargon You really are overrating hardware.
This page took 0.01 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.