Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 10:44:08 06/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
First, there is a difference between fair and equal. Consider the human tournaments. Not all players are of the same age (you won't find two players born at exactly the same time). Not all have the same number of years of training or experience. Some have more money than others, so they hired better coaches. Some are from better family environments than others. Nothing is equal. But its all fair. In these tournaments, you are allowed to bring the best that you can, knowing that your opponents will do the same. You are also allowed to bring less, if that is all you can afford to bring. 30-year old world champion, vs 15-year old prodigy - fair but not equal. 4-proc opteron vs pocket pc - fair but not equal. Second, the more likely winner is not just the best hardware. Its the best combination of many other things, including the best book, the best compiler, the best luck (in choice of book moves), etc. Fair still. --- On June 17, 2005 at 08:25:01, Christopher Conkie wrote: >Hello, > >You may know if you have been awake that there are some long threads recently >about positional understanding in chess engines. > >Coming up shortly is the WCCC 2005 in Rekjavic. > >In this championship there are a few engines taking part. I am now going to try >to explain the big problem that I and many others have with this championship. > >In a fair event such as a human game of chess, the competitors play and the >person with the most positional understanding and the greatest depth of thought >wins. There is no help provided to either side. They must live and die by their >own evaluation of a position. > >That's is the human side of things......now for computer chess. > >In the WCCC 2005 the same is just not true. > >1. The computers/hardware are all different specs. >2. The OS software used is also different. >3. The engines use opening books. >4. The engines use tablebases. > >It seems that these points have floated right by everyone. > >Know that the winner of the WCCC 2005 will be the best hardware, not the best >engine. > >Know that WCCC should stand in reality for...... > >World Chess "Computer" Championship with the fundamental emphasis on "Computer" >not chess. > >The WCCC will show no insight whatsoever for chess engines abilities while these >anomalies exist. > >The championships are in effect.....meaningless. > >It is a very piric victory to be declared World Champion on the basis of having >the best hardware and not the best chess engine. > >Until these points are addressed and the championships are made a level playing >field for all concerned they will and do continue to be about as useful for >computer chess development and improvement as a chocolate oven (remember not to >cook with it, it would melt). > >The only way to move forward is to give the same hardware, same software, same >protocol, no books, no tablebases........and therefore same chance to all who >participate. > >Money is not everything, progress is much more important than money. > >We learn nothing from WCCC 2005, it matters not at this point in time who the >winner will be. It is also a very good reason why no amateur will spend money to >go to one of the most expensive countries on earth to get "a doing". Why put >yourself through all the pain? > >I move this proposal to the floor to see what your thoughts are......maybe you >have none and do not care, but I do care, I care very much. So much so that I >have written this and therefore tried to show you this injustice is apparant and >happening soon in Rekjavic. > >What do you all think? > >Christopher
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.