Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 06:55:03 10/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 09:27:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On October 22, 1997 at 03:47:16, Chris Whittington wrote: > >> >>On October 21, 1997 at 18:51:58, Bruce Moreland wrote: >> >>>I'm not writing this in exactly the right place, but I can't continue >>>looking around for the right place, since it took me a half hour to get >>>this one post up, so I can respond to it. Unfortunately, it was the >>>wrong post, so I had to snip everything. >>> >>>The contention has been made that Bob and I are destroying this event by >>>bringing powerful hardware. >> >>'Destroying' is your exageration. >> >>> More exactly, we are driving away >>>commercial programmers who either can't afford or can't arrange hot >>>machines. >> >>It wasn't asserted that YOU WERE, but that the general action of bring >>super fast machines MAY be. >> > >the *only* names I have seen mentioned are "bruce and bob". Not Frans >or Ernst or Joel or any of a big group of others bringing something >faster than the K6's... > > I expected a few p2 300's. Don't really approve, but their advantage is not going to be 3.5 x as with liquid nitrogen cooled alphas, is it ? > >>> >>>The specific example is Hiarcs, but MChess is also mentioned. >>> >>>The supplied hardware at the '95 Paderborn WMCCC was a 120 mhz P5, and >>>Hiarcs and MChess brought 133 mhz P5's. This is not that big a deal, >>>but the 133 mhz P5 was the best you could get at that time, and the >>>supplied 120 mhz machine didn't have a lot of extras on it. >> >>This is not a big deal by any means. 120 -> 133 is very little. > > >I've also asked this before, but no answer. I'll ask again: "how fast >is not too fast". IE what is the maximum allowable mhz you'd want to >see? >Why is a PII/300 not an issue when it is significantly faster than a >K6/233? On the same playing field. Not another class or two above. >why is a 500 (or 766mhz) alpha a problem, when my 500 mhz machine is >probably not even 1.5x the PII/300? > >Again, "how fast is too fast"??? A class or two above. 2x or anything near it is another class. Maybe 1.5 is another class. 1.2 or 1.3 is the same class IMO. > > >> >>> >>>At the previous WMCCC, Munich '93, Hiarcs brought a Sparc of some sort. Note he is an 'amateur' ! >> >>Definitely bad as far as I'm concerned. Obviously an attempt to gain a >>massive advantage. >> >>>and MChess was on a 60mhz P5. >> >>Likewise. >> >>> I have no idea how fast that Sparc was >>>(it is describe only as "very fast" in the ICCAJ), but he won the event. >>> I expect that both of these machines were a lot better than the >>>supplied machines, which were 486/66's. >> >>Certainly true, and very bad. >> >>> >>>On the inside back cover of the Jun '97 issue of "Chess Monthly" is a >>>picture of Hiarcs' box, I presume. On the box cover it says "World >>>Champion Program". If it also says "Sparc", I don't see it. >> >>This is true. And another reason for being opposed to ultra fast >>machines at the WMCCC which give somebody a substantial hardware >>advantage; sometimes sufficient to win the tournament. >> >>Note also the length of time he has remained an 'amateur' ! >> >>> >>>In both events, several others brought nice machines, usually >>>professionals, but also the occasional amateur (XXXX in '95). >>> >>>There have also been Alphas in both of those events, a 150 mhz alpha in >>>the '93 event (The King, finished second), and a 275 mhz Alpha in the >>>'95 event (Dark Thought, finished 7th on Bukholz points). >> >>Likewise I don;t like it. >> >>> >>>I didn't go back any further than this, but I'm sure the articles are >>>full of interesting things. >> >>Now presumably, you're listing this to show the uncool bringing of >>superfast hardware, to show that it has often dramatically influenced >>the result, to show that it has possibly resulted in total distortion of >>the tournament. >> >>And I would agree with you. >> >>BUT NOW YOU ARE DOING IT THIS YEAR. And listing all the other occasions >>doesn't make your actions any better. >> >>Chris >> >>> >>>bruce > >It just shows we aren't "stupid." Steamrollers can be pretty stupid, but its not sensible to argue with them. Chris
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.