Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:20:00 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 12:04:21, steven blincoe wrote: >>I claim only that the situation is not fair if people look at it as a >>competition of programming > > >and this is the very point >people do look at it as the best program has won >most do not know the niceties that this is a hardware dual with a chess program People are looking at it the wrong way. It has always been an open hardware event. You are not going to get the best chess if it is not an open hardware event. The goal is not the best programming, but the best chess. This is where you guys are going off the rails on this issue. >perhaps many here realize this distinction ,but certainly not most of the >general public >lets watch the claims made by Chessbase now for Junior >"winner of the 2004 WCCC!!!..no doubt >i imagine very little will be made of the hardware that was used > >my hat is off to you and Omni >you took on the big boys with the mega bucks and their multi-million dollar None of the computers were multi-million dollar machines. They were all less than $30,000 machines, if not significantly less. A 64-way Itanium might be a multi-million dollar rig, but nobody used one in this contest. >computers..you had courage..you fought the good fight! >Shalom(peace) to you both >Steve > > > > > > > > > > because programs that could use better hardware like >>Deep Sjeng or ParSos used only a single processor not because of programming >>advantage and programs that used a single processor did not use the best one not >>because of programming. >> >>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.