Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:58:26 06/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 1999 at 18:36:31, Prakash Das wrote: >On June 03, 1999 at 13:46:07, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On June 03, 1999 at 00:07:02, Prakash Das wrote: >> >>>On June 02, 1999 at 23:52:11, Prakash Das wrote: >>> >>>>On June 02, 1999 at 15:30:41, Tania Devora wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What is the hardware for the 9th Wccc99 ? >>>>> >>>>>There are many strong computer programs that not go to participate in this >>>>>World championship , like Chessmaster6000, and many others. >>>>> >>>>>I think that this is not a fair play . Cilkchess and others programs will run is >>>>>a Super machines, is evident that could win easy. >>>>> >>>>>For me all the programs, will run in the same computer with the same ram memory. >>>>> >>>>>Is the only way to see the real strengh of the program. >>>>> >>>>>For example Fritz5.32 in a Pentium III 500 MHZ could beat Fritz5.32 (pentium 200 >>>>>mmx) , for a big score. >>>> >>>> >>>> Tania, you are wasting your breath. A while back, I started a thread called >>>>"Uneven hardware for wmcc?" in which I questioned the purpose of this >>>>self-congratulatory exercise. >>>> Most of teh replies went like this: it's fun, it's like creating a Mount >>>>Olympus of chess programs, we are coming with the meanest baddest machine, etc >>>>etc. No one really cared about addressing the real point: what the hell is going >>>>to be accomplished. >>>> So, sit back, and get ready for a few yawns. You will see the same old programs >>>>which are at "top of charts" decimate the others (not bad programs necessarily) >>>>running on weak hardware. >>>> If we tried to solve cancer in this "scientific" manner, there's no hope for >>>>living beings. >>> >>> Well, following up on myself. I thought this was obvious, but as in my previous >>>post on that other thread, let's say program A on big bad hardware B, beat >>>program D on weaker hardware E. What did this prove? Wins and losses are all >>>relative, and so will be the standings later on. What kind of Mount Olympus did >>>we scale (Karinsdad)?? It is a mirage where we appear to have created a super >>>"playing system". But this would have achieved by beating another on weaker >>>hardware. Next day, the result will be different. >>> >>> Let's hold a WMCC everyday with changing hardware. That way, we will create >>>tons of mount Olympus! >> >>How much scientific advancement was created by man stepping on the moon? >> >>Well, from the point of view of most people, quite a bit. We now have satellite >>technology, cellular phones, microwave ovens, personal computers, and a lot of >>other technology that can be directly linked to that one competition. > > > I doubt that all the things you point out above were accomplished just because >men landed on moon. As a matter of fact, NASA's big budget space programs (like >travel to moon, travel to pluto maybe etc), do not have the proportionate amount >of advance as the budget they spent. For that same amount of money, much better >advancement would have been possible right here inside the laboratories on >Earth. Yes, there is some advancement (if you are spending zillions, something >will happen), but it is a wasteful way of doing research. I hate to argue, but this is _all_ nonsense... what came out of the US space program? Micro-electronics, because weight and physical size was a _huge_ issue. No NASA, micro-electronics would be behind 20 years or more. More? Easy. Communications (satellites). Not really any need to enumerate them. The space program more than paid for itself in spin-offs that made life better all over the planet... >Nobel physicist >Richard Feynman said as much. He said that these kind of things are only for the >egos of bureaucrats and politicians. It is also for the consumption of the >common man. Everybody looks good. Wonderful. Not really. > > Building the super collider in Texas (instead of shelving it) would have >produced some great advances in high energy physics, and many applications to >other areas. > > A spacecraft shooting off in a blazing cloud of flames looks wonderful. People >buy into it. It was/is wonderful... You just have to look to see how it has helped... > >> >>Do you think that both the US and the Soviets said, "Hey, we can only use this >>type of rocket fuel or these types of seats in the spacecraft."? >> >>No, they experimented with a lot of different designs and ideas until they came >>up with ones that worked for them. > > > I tried to understand what you said, but I couldn't. Who is preventing anyone >of these guys from using whatever rocket fuel (or whatever) to do what they >want. Don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. > You want to restrict things to _one_ computing platform. Metaphor = one type of rocket fuel. Stifles research... If this was done early on, computer chess would be far different, and far worse today... >> >>Do you think that Deep Blue would have EVER existed if not for Belle and HiTech >>being allowed to compete on different hardware platforms? The advancement of man >>is not always limited to black and white scientific experiments. > > There is nothing like black and white experiments I have seen. Many experiments >can be very very difficult and the results hard to interpret. > > No one is preventing from experiments like Belle and others you point out, from >happening. The topic was, this is a "world championship". Haven't understood >yet, world champion of what. In this scenario, the WC would be one who beat the >others overall. But it would have been beaten other non-optimum "systems". So, >once again, I don't see what was proved. > simple. It shows the _strongest_ electronic chess player there is. Where 'electronic chess player' == computer + program + databases + opening book + whatever else can be stuffed into the equation... >> >>No, they said that for this event, it is both traditional and it makes sense to >>find out which program/hardware combination is the best every three years. > > Why call it a world championship. This title doesn't make sense to me.. There >are all kinds of computer/technological/etc "fairs" being held all the time.. >Companies come out with great and new products. The platform is non-uniform, >everyone comes up with their own creation, but no one calls this environment a >"world championship." > There is a world championship in practically any type of 'game'. Chess is a game. In this case, played by computers. Who has the strongest player in the world? This event shows that. >> >>Prakash, most of the people on this forum will congratulate you if you put up >>the money for and follow through on a scientific experiment like you propose. >>However, they do not necessarily appreciate you putting down a traditional event >>because you do not like how it is being run. > > I am not putting down the tradition.. I understand all that. I was questioning >the "value" of such a thing, although, there is a "value" in everything, we can >argue about semantics. > Just because the purpose escapes me and I wonder about it, doesn't mean, you >automatically ask me to put zillions of dollars to host another event :) > Karinsdad, using your logic, anyone who questioned anything would always have >to put up a huge fund. > >> >>By doing this, you are attempting to stifle innovation and competition. > > Those things cannot be stifled. Human race has proved, despite passing >inhospitable circumstances. Projects like deep blue etc. will always be pursued. >I don't see how this will be stifled, just because it didn't get an arbitrary >title of world champion. > If you can't compete, there is no driving force. "competition" has made computer chess what it is today. It started long before there was a "microcomputer". What rule would you have used in 1974 for the first one? >>Grumble about it without doing anything and hero will not be the label >>that most people place on you. >> > > I don't grumble. you are :) (I am just questioning this designation of "world >championship.")
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.