Author: Joshua Shriver
Date: 08:36:52 06/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
I sadly agree. While software is important, hardware does play a big role. No offense to anyone, but I think a more fair test of "engine strength" would be decided by everyone having the same hardware. This makes it rather unfair for the amature developers who roll in with a P3/P4 or whatever is offered there, when compared to these quad opteron beasts. I've read some ppl say that even if everyone had the same machine, then results would be bias on those engines written for that arch. For example if everyone was using a single Opteron, then those using bitboards would have an advantage. In that case I say more power to the developer. In my eyes, it's the code that matters, not necessarily who can create the best "computer chess machine (soft+hardware). For me I'm utilizing this to my advantage. I hope to be in the 2005 WCCC competition, and already have time allocated on a supercomputer in Sweden. If I can get even in the top 5, even with my lowly code, it really goes to show what value WCCC has on real coding ability. I'll never be as good of a chess coder than Dr. Hyatt or many other engine writers. I dont mean this as a flame, just a personal feeling. If WCCC is for the best "computer chess machine" then wonderful. Are there any Comp Chess competitions that really test the accurate strength of engines on a equal hardware level? Sincerely, Joshua Shriver On June 29, 2004 at 07:28:11, Peter Berger wrote: >Was there any reason to believe that Crafty would have a big hardware advantage? > >It doesn't surprise me that ChessBase has similar abilities to organize fast >hardware as Bob Hyatt. > >The only ones who will truely suffer are the ones who have to use the default >hardware, playing against opponents with 10 times faster systems ... > >Peter
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.