Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 13:10:58 08/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 30, 2004 at 14:57:40, David H. McClain wrote: >So is the argument valid that Hydra is a better chess program, or is it better >because of its hardware? It's apples and oranges. Hydra is a different approach than normal "chess playing software". It's more like a "chess playing computer". They can both play chess very well. The point of the chess match is not "Who has the better software?" It is "Who finishes with more points?", and nothing more. Think of it this way. Let's have a race. Everyone starts in New York and the first person to Los Angelos is the winner of the race. Lance Armstrong enters the race and decides to ride his bike. Jeff Gordon enters with his racing car. A military fighter pilot enters with his fighter jet and finishes days before the other participants. After the race all of the cycling hobbyists are chatting on their message board saying, "But the fighter pilot is clearly not a better cyclist than Lance!" The NASCAR fans are all chatting on their message board saying, "But the fighter pilot is clearly not a better race car driver than Jeff Gordon!" And here we have all of the computer chess software hobbyists chatting on a message board saying, "But Hydra is not the best chess software!" The point of the contest was not, "Who has the better chess software?" It was, "Which participant finishes with more points?" A lot of people miss the point of computer chess contests. They think they are only about chess software, and that is not the case. Superior software is only one means to an end. There are other means to reach that end, if you are fortunate enough to be in a situation to make use of those means.
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.