Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:16:22 05/28/99
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. I don't understand what you don't understand. This is an "open" competition. Anything is allowed. Any sort of hardware and software combination that can play chess. It has _always_ been that way. It will always be that way. The question being asked is "what is the strongest electronic chessplayer on the planet?" Not "what is the strongest program?" Or "Who is best on equal hardware?" or anything else... > > 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. > Why do you thing they have "open" drag races? Any motor. Any transmission. Any fuel delivery system. Any fuel (gas, alcohol, nitromethane, nitrous oxide) plus any parts you can put together yourself. That is the same sort of contest this is... totally 'open' with no restrictions at all other than the chess playing 'entity' must be electronic. > 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." > this has always been the case. No one has ever suggested that it was 'equal hardware' or anything else. IE why do you think we called "Cray Blitz" "Cray Blitz"?? And who would think that "Cray Blitz" was running on a PeeCee? The tournament publicity statements always give the various hardware platforms, how fast the programs are on their platform, etc... > Yes, there is nothing wrong in having fun, but don't call it a world >championship. Equality in the name of science I demand :) Sorry... but in 'world championships' you allow everyone/everything in the world to compete... in 'restricted world championships' you don't... ie the annual WMCCC event that only allows microprocessor programs (one cpu only).
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.