Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:33:26 07/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 01:27:59, Matthew Hull wrote: >Then it wouldn't be boxing, would it. Your analogy is completely bogus. > >Look, man. A WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP is the big league. Not some bush league >desktop computer event. This is where we expect to see the biggest hardware and >the best software. You can't get the best computer chess in the world if you >limit the hardware. It neutralizes the title of the event. You expect the >CHAMPIONSHIP OF THE WHOLE EARTH to have the biggest and meanest computer chess >playing systems that can be assembled. If this is your expectation then you can be disappointed because the last 4 programs even did not use a fast single processor machine and only used a slow Pentium4 2.8 ghz. Deep Sjeng also did not use more than one processor inspite of the fact that the program is capable of doing it. If you can't figure that out, then you >have a problem. > >Stop trying to dumb down the event just so your little one-CPU program will have >a chance. If you can't play in the big league, then just get out. David Omid did not suggest to dumb down the event and as far as I understand he already have a program to support more than one processor but did not have the right hardware. Uri
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.