Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:33:45 07/14/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 14, 2004 at 13:39:47, steven blincoe wrote: > >> >>Maybe you shouldn't base your sayings on a site who isn't interested in >>promoting computer chess but making money. What do you think any commercial on >>TV or advertisement does? Ever heard of small print? You think they are going to >>go into the details of the tournament? A title is a title. Is it really that >>difficult to grasp? > >actually its exactly what i expected >and it illustrates the point quite nicely,i think,that except perhaps for some >members here,the rest of the world considers the WCCC to be the premiere test of >program strength..hardware...geee..whats that? >we here are not indicitive of the rest of the world.. > >as long as this is the perception..then lets do it right in the future >lets put everyone on an even playing field..then at least the claims can be made >that the best program won and it will really mean something > >Steve Nobody is interested in that. The goal is the best chess from a computer system. Who cares who would win on uniform hardware. That has been done already in the past and nobody cared. Now you want to repeat the "nobody cares" tournaments? As a computer scientist, I want to see what is possible. I want to see the frontiers of the problem explored. That is how we learn. It is about chess, not about egalitarian hardware restrictions. The field is level already. There is a game called chess. Using the resources available in the world, build a system to play the best chess. That is what is interesting. Your notion of computer chess championship seems to be one focused on finding the best programmer, which is not the same as finding the best chessplayer. The best chessplayer will play the best chess. If the best chess comes from a supercomputer, then I want to see it and discover the new boundaries, the new benchmark. You people seem to be utterly lacking in intellectual curiosity. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but it does generate the kind of posts we are seeing where people are not interested in the best chess, but some other human-related self-esteem building excercise. That sort of thing has no place in this field of endeavor. > > > > > > >> >>> >>>as long as the perception of this event remains that the best program is the >>>winner...its then best to have the same hardware in the future >>>Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>my hat is off to you and Omni >>>>you took on the big boys with the mega bucks and their multi-million dollar >>>>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.