Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 09:39:01 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 12:30:13, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On July 14, 2004 at 12:19:46, Sean Empey wrote: > >>On July 14, 2004 at 12:11:31, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2004 at 12:06:35, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:41:04, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:38:31, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:26:47, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 14, 2004 at 11:12:14, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not at all, Omid >>>>>>>>If you already have a parallel engine you should run it into a hardware capable >>>>>>>>of getting all its power. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I understand that you are going to provide the hardware, right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is not something personal; next year I will have the needed hardware, but >>>>>>>what about others? Deep Sjeng and ParSOS were also parallel engines, but ran on >>>>>>>single processor not because they thought it was better, but because they did >>>>>>>not have access to a fast multiprocessor machine. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>I wonder what except the results changed from two weeks ago to now to make you >>>>>>imply this is an unfair event and go on raving about it ?! >>>>>> >>>>>>Weren't you even one of the organizers? >>>>> >>>>>Yes, and I complained loudly about it even before the event. >>>> >>>> It doesn't make sense to organize something you complain about. Either ask >>>>_before_ that it is a WMCCC this year or don't organize something you're >>>>against. >>> >>>I'm glad that we organized it, and am very happy that it took place >>>successfully. >>> >>>I'm of course not against it, but simply say that there is room for >>>improvement. >> >>Yes, but it's not making it easier for _you_ to win. It's marketing it better >>and getting more participation. > >For this very reason a uniform hardware rule should be adopted. The number of >participants would be much higher in a uniform hardware event, and you can >expect other strong single processor engines (like Hiarcs and Tiger) to join. Wrong. CCT6 had Hiarcs, Junior and Rebel AND it was open hardware. There were three times the participants. This proves you are completely wrong. People don't come to WCCC because it's too expensive and too long. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Your problem is that you said here that Falcon only loses consistently to >>>>Shredder and now you need an excuse. But you needn't, actually. Just accept WCCC >>>>is not a measure of strength but just a party for programmers and teams and try >>>>to prove your strength in more scientifically tests like SSDF. >>>> >>>> José C. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>The multi-processor entries got the first 5 places in the tournament - this was >>>>>>partly unexpected by some, probably including you. Had you been aware of it >>>>>>before the event you probably would have tried to get better hardware in case >>>>>>your engine can use it successfully. Every other answer is a bit hard to believe >>>>>>for me. >>>>>> >>>>>>Peter
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.