Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:20:31 07/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2004 at 22:59:07, Bryan Cabalo wrote: >On July 07, 2004 at 22:08:20, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On July 07, 2004 at 19:27:11, Bryan Cabalo wrote: >> >>>Why doesn't everyone run their competitive chess programs with the same hardware >>>so that no single chess engine has a hardware advantage? >>> >>>It seems unfair to me that some competitors have access to faster and better >>>hardware. I would think of it as a science experiment where the only variable >>>is the chess engine itself and _not_ the hardware that its running on. That is >>>the real test. I want to see the real winner of this event competing on equal >>>hardware playing grounds. I think this would help with hardware uniformity in >>>future WCCC events. There has to be something in the rules about playing with >>>equal hardware. Maybe after this year the WCCC could supply the use of one >>>computer for each participant, or even quad opterons for each participant!! >> >>flawed idea. What about the program that can't use more than one CPU? What >>about the program written in assembly language, say for a SPARC, or for an >>ITANIUM, or even a CRAY? >> >>Pick an architecture and you will certainly exclude a sub-set of possible >>players. >> >>A uniform-platform event is an interesting idea. But then again so is a "bring >>the biggest hammer you can find" event. > >Here then, the biggest hammer would be a cluster of computers utilized for a >distributed search. A chess program that makes use of multiple processors >dedicated to finding the best move, kind of like what Stanford is doing with >their distributed protien folding project: http://folding.stanford.edu/. Could >this quite possibly be what Deep Junior is using?! Again, seems like a huge >advantage to have if this is the case! I doubt they use a cluster. That means message-passing, which has its own problems for parallel search. > >>IE would you want to exclude Deep Blue >>were it still playing? It had its own special hardware. What about Belle? >>What about the more recent Brutus with its special hardware? >> > >That's true. > >> >>> >>>After all, we are just testing which chess search program is better, right? >> >>Not necessarily. We also want to know which chess _player_ is better. And the >>player is composed of both the program _and_ the hardware... > >Okay, so bottom line SDDF says which 0x86 compiled chess playing _program_ is >the computer chess champion because they test these programs on equal hardware. >WCCC says which overall chess playing _system_ is the computer chess champion: >program, compiler, hardware, operator are included. I dig that.
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.