Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 20:45:59 07/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2004 at 19:27:11, Bryan Cabalo wrote: >After all, we are just testing which chess search program is better, right? No. This is not the intent. The intent doesn't even have anything to do with determining who is best. You can't determine that in such a short event. It is a competition among computerized chess playing entities, hardware and software combined. You can't seperate the two. Even if the goal _was_ to determine the best chess playing software, you couldn't do it. Every chess programmer has a slightly different philosophy and has focused his efforts on different areas. Some work on multiprocessor search, while others focus their efforts on search and knowledge. Some use bitboards to get a boost on 64-bit hardware. Some, like Gerd Isenburg (author of Isichess which is currently participating in the WCCC) have written a lot of assembly code that is aimed specifically for a certain processor (the Opteron in this case). How can you fairly choose what "equal hardware" will be used? An equal hardware event doesn't tell you anything more than an open hardware event. If you still think it's such a good idea, then tell us what "equal hardware" should be used. Then I'll tell you why your choice isn't fair.
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.