Author: Sean Empey
Date: 11:26:09 07/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 13, 2004 at 14:09:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 13, 2004 at 13:29:20, Sean Empey wrote: > >>On July 13, 2004 at 13:22:04, steven blincoe wrote: >> >>>> >>>>To avoid any further disadvantage for the single processor programs, I recommend >>>>two group of winners for next year! >>>> >>>> >>>>Trophies for the SMP programs And for the single processor programs >>>> First group Second group >>>> >>>> 1st Deep Junior 1st Jonny >>>> 2nd Shredder 2nd Falcon >>>> 3rd Diep 3rd IsiChess >>> >>> >>>it seems to me that common sense would dictate that the hardware to be used is >>>uniform for all entrants >>> >>> >>>even if this means certain progs cannot be entered >>> >>>otherwise we are comparing apples witn oranges >>> >>> >>>in an effort to include programs not written to run on standard computers,we >>>wind up with results heavily impacted by the different hardware being used >>> >>> >>>its as if the cure is worse then the disease >>> >>>Steve >> >> >>Hardware is part of the program. If you write your program to utilize SMP, then >>your program has that advantage, it makes it that much stronger. > > >Hardware is not always part of the program. > >Deep Sjeng can support more than one processor but did not use more than one >processor because of the simple reason that the programmer did not get a machine >with more than one processor. > >You can say that hardware is part of the program only if there is a sponsor that >gives every participant the best machine that it can use but unfortunately it is >not the case and the hardware that was given to the participants who had not >faster hardware to use was only P4 2.8 ghz that is significantly slower than the >best single processor that they can use that is probably opteron150. > >Practically Athlon64 was used by part of the programs that support only single >processor and Pentium4 was used by the weakest programs and it gave them another >disadvantage(I do not think that in this case better hardware could change the >ranking of the last 4 places but I believe that they could score more points >with better hardware). > >Uri In your example hardware is part of the program that entered inasmuch that hardware was a top priority for most participants and many calculated the results taking the hardware into consideration. Commandeering hardware is pretty important for the tournament. You had numerous posts trying to get your system squared away for the tourney. Again, IMO having even hardware doesn't really do anything. If it's that important to have even hardware results, look to the SSDF. If a program is designed to use MP, then it's designed for a certain configuration, no? Otherwise why do people target certain machines? Obviously to get more out of the program. I agree it's lame if you can't get a sponsor to provide a quad or better but that's part of the tourney in my eyes. Bring the best you can and battle. The tournament isn't equal hardware, why constantly fight that. If a participant doesn't like that fact; they don't have to enter the tournament. -Sean
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.