Author: Bryan Cabalo
Date: 22:31:46 07/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2004 at 23:45:59, Russell Reagan wrote: >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. I thought that the point of a competition determines the best one out of a given group of competitors. >You can't determine that in such a short event. Okay, maybe the intent is to determine the best in such a short event. Can't deny that one. >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. Robert Hyatt clarified the issue along with a few others in the thread. _And_ I didn't say the idea was a good one. :)
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.