Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 07:52:11 09/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 1999 at 09:34:31, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 17, 1999 at 02:49:06, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On September 16, 1999 at 20:29:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 1999 at 18:41:30, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>> >>>>On September 16, 1999 at 13:04:42, blass uri wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 16, 1999 at 10:54:08, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>>>><snipped> >>>>>>Also we know that this company does not WANT to give same chances to all >>>>>>(example:paderborn championship). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If you mean to the fact that Junior,Nimzo,Hiarcs,Fritz played in WCCC then I do >>>>>not see something wrong with it. >>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>CB manipulated the sponsor of the championship (SIEMENS) not to give ALL >>>>participants a primergy server, due to the fact that THEY wanted to have >>>>this advantages for THEIR OWN programs. >>>>So they did not want all partipants to have the best machines, they wanted >>>>this advantage for themselves. >>>>Nice guys. >>>>Good that they lost ! >>> >>> >>>This is a pretty alarming statement, and it is one I have heard once before >>>from a _different_ source. If it is true, my opinion of ChessBase drops lower >>>than a snake's belly. >>> >>>Anybody have any more information? >> >>Exactly how much benefit will be derived from serial chess programs running on a >>quad-cpu Primergy server? "Infinitesimal" is the word that comes to mind. Even >>if it were true, it hardly matters from a _performance_ standpoint, which makes >>the alleged request rather odd, wouldn't you say? >> >>Dave > > >there were at least a few parallel programs at the WCCC. Diep ran on my xeon. >Ferret on Bruce's where he could have had a 20% faster box (quad 550's rather >than his quad 450). Oh, I thought Bruce had already been on a quad 550. Diep is less relevant in terms of fighting for first place. >But the point is that no one should influence a vendor wanting to supply >hardware to entrants. And nearly _every_ entrant would have been faster on >a 550 xeon cpu with 1 or 2 megs of L2 cache than they would be on any other >pentium available at the time... Sure, but the difference between a single 550-Xeon and a single 550 is not staggeringly large. Every little bit helps improve the odds, and of course we'd all like to take the faster machine when we could get one, but the likelihood that it's going to make the difference isn't really so high. I'd speculate that the position reached by play from the opening books would affect the result more than having one of those two chips instead of the other. As for influencing a vendor, if you have some arrangement worked out with them, and you feel that something else they are considering doing would jeopardize the value of that existing arrangement, you won't see too many companies NOT trying to influence the vendor! Call it self-serving if you want, but that's what corporations are. I'd be happy to see better from them, but I wouldn't expect it even 1 time out of 100. >I have no idea whether this happened or not, but it would be very sad if it >turns out to be true. I know someone over there and I'm going to ask, just to >see what I can find out about it. This person is placed high enough that he >might have a chance to find out what went on... Dave
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.