Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 17:16:44 05/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 1999 at 19:33:28, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: > >On May 31, 1999 at 17:46:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 30, 1999 at 15:58:42, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >> >>> >>>On May 30, 1999 at 14:23:19, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Mel, >>>> here it goes a fragment of a post by Dr. Hyatt you are constantly referring in >>>>the thread about SSDF testing: >>>> >>>>---------------------------------------------- >>>>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... >>>> >>>>---------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> As you can see, you were attributing to Dr. Hyatt words by Prakash Das. >>>>José. >>> >>>I can't find the posting anymore; however, if the above is correct, I agree >>>totally with Prakash Das. I do believe the question is - what is the strongest >>>program? Isn't THAT what we are interested in when we look at ratings, reviews, >>>etc.? >>> >>>I may have stated the wrong author of my quote but fail to see any significant >>>factor that undermines my ultimate point. >>> >>>If you or anyone else - includng Dr. Hyatt - feel it is not important to compare >>>software on equal terms, have a nice day! >>> >>>By the way, the initial response I received from my FIRST post from the author >>>posting the Hiarcs - Nimzo match - stated I was CORRECT about testing hardware >>>on equal terms but they don't have the resources to do that!! >>> >>>Now, what have you to say??? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Mel >> >> >>I say that you simply don't have enough experience with computer chess to >>understand the issue. _HOW_ do you compare deep blue with a Pentium III/550? >>That is as difficult as comparing a bicycle to a Ferrari f-5. They have less >>in common than they have differences. >> >>The WCCC has _always_ allowed dedicated chess machines, special purpose >>hardware, supercomputers, etc. The WMCCC has _always_ only allowed single-cpu >>commercially available microprocessors. _that_ is probably the event you want to >>pay attention if you are only interested in which program is the best when >>running on current PC hardware. The WCCC is not here to answer _that_ question. >>It is there to answer the question of "who is the biggest, baddest, computer >>chess 'entity' that can play the game?" >> >>Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like that, just ignore it and pay >>attention to the WMCCC event which is closer to what you want. > >Hello Dr. Hyatt! > >Perhaps there is some confusion on what I'm looking for. First, I am not >interested in comparing dedicated computers. I am interseted in comparing >software programs - commercial software programs like Hiarcs, Fritz,Rebel, etc. >I've found at Shep's site he runs tournaments with programs such as listed >above, on equal hardware and at various time controls. I also personally >believe, and this may be just my opinion of all the members here, that comparing >programs on equal hardware is of the utmost importance if one wishes to know >which program deserves the consideration as being the best. If a program wins a >tournament at 40/2 - that's the only time control I'm interested in - then I >believe that program at that time should have the honor of being called the >best. As for ratings, I also believe testing programs on equal hardware is the >optimum way to achieve the most accurate results. > I don't argue that point. There are three kinds of events that have been held over the past 30 years. (1) Open tournaments where anything goes, bring the fastest hardware you can; (2) micro-only events where you can use the fastest commercially available microcomputer you can find (one cpu only, for reasons that make no sense since dual/quad machines are available and not expensive); (3) uniform-platform events where all the programs have to run on the same identical hardware. (3) has problems, in that it disallows hardware diversity. IE the most likely platform would be the PIII today, which overlooks the digital alpha (faster) and the PPC/G3 (faster). Plus the soon-to-be-out K7, not to mention the HP processor, the MIPS processor, etc. Why stifle development on these other platforms? In (3) what about someone that did an assembly-only version? Is that fair for the C-only programs since the assembly-only version will be much faster? The C programs will port easily to alternative platforms. The asm version won't. What about an asm program that takes advantage of the MMX or new instructions on the PIII? Fair or not fair? Micro-programs are pretty much micro-processor based today, and the WMCCC is a good example of such an event. The WCCC is set up to answer a totally different question... and the mis-quote wasn't an issue to me at all. Easy mistake to make. Not worth discussing other than to make the correction and then go on... >I'm glad you responded even though we may disagree on some or all of the above. >I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere apologies at naming >you the author of a quote I have used. I guess you can call it a major >"BLUNDER". Once again, please accept my apology for making that terrible >mistake. > >Regards, >Mel
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.