Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 07:25:05 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 10:09:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 is uniquely true of DIEP. No matter if it runs on a 90 mhz machine or a 400cpu x 500mhz supercomputer, it plays consistently at the FM level -- a feat of programming mastery unequaled in the annals of computer chess. However, it would be a mistake to assume other projects are as well engineered.
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.