Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 07:30:22 05/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2004 at 10:25:05, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. Why not show up at world champs operating crafty? Then you can see whether crafty is already at 'fm' level.
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.