Author: KarinsDad
Date: 13:32:55 05/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 27, 1999 at 15:51:59, Prakash Das wrote: >Well, I still don't understand the point of this "world championship" then. Sure >, you can call it "hey, if nothing it will be fun", a "test of systems", etc. >But what are exactly is this exercise trying to prove? If program A on hardware >B, beats program D on hardware E - does that say much about A compared to B? >This belies the principles of science - you have to have a uniform platform >for all participants to make any kind of judgement. > > Someone said it is a test of "systems". Everything is a system - a >philosophical concept to a microwave oven to a method of planting trees. >Why call this a world championship at all .. why not simply, some kind of >"fair"? I mean, to draw scietific conclusions on such a basis is impractical. > > There is no doubt that the latest programs will all do well given their owners >will land up with super hardware. Hey, what a surprise! And invariably the >programs that look bad are either the older ones, or the ones whose owners >could/would not bring the best hardware. > > Considering that the results of this "world championship" will be used for >marketing purposes, perhaps the organizers should have made it obligatory on >each particpant to print some kind of following statement in case of a marketing >advertisement: > > "This championship had participants using their own hardware. Because of the >non-uniform nature of the hardware.. etc.. the results cannot be used to draw >wide conclusions." > > Yes, there is nothing wrong in having fun, but don't call it a world >championship. Equality in the name of science I demand :) Prakash, So, from your point of view, it is more important to science to have hardware equality than it is to have competing designs. In other words: If I were to create a chess program specifically designed to use features of a Pentium III or an Alpha chip, I should not be able to compete with people who did not do that. If I were to create a chess program specifically designed to take advantage of multiple CPUs, I should not be able to compete with people who did not do that. If I were to create a chess program specifically designed to play on a Mac, I should not be able to compete with people who did not do that. If I were to create a chess program specifically designed to play on a Nintendo 64, I should not be able to compete with people who did not do that. If I were to create a chess program specifically designed to play on a car radio, I should not be able to compete with people who did not do that. Every competitor is equal. All of them must use some form of computer hardware. All of them must use some form of computer software. All of them must follow the same rules during the competition. If you take away the ability to run on different hardware, then you force chess program design into stagnation. Designing a program to run on a multi-CPU system is extremely difficult (to do it properly). But after spending 247 hours working on his program so that it can do this, a programmer should listen to Prakash saying that it is unfair. It is not scientific. The purpose of a World Computer Chess Championship is to have a Mount Olympus for all chess programmers. A place where they can strive for their moment in the sun. Of course, the commercial products will use that moment of glory in an attempt to promote sales if they win. That is the way of the world. But, to restrict the ideas and the aspirations of the programmers in order to attain some form of scientific program strength comparison is to take away one of the reasons some of these programmers work on their programs. By doing this, you take away the heart of their goal: to compete and possibly one day attain the title of winner of the computer chess Mount Olympus. Why would you want to do that to them? KarinsDad :)
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.