Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:49:02 10/22/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 22, 1997 at 09:51:20, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On October 22, 1997 at 09:19:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 22, 1997 at 06:33:23, Chris Whittington wrote: >> >>> >>>On October 22, 1997 at 05:16:45, Walter Ravenek wrote: >>> >>>>Since there is nothing in the tournament rules to forbid you >>>>to use the fastest machine you can get, it is no use complaining. >>>> >>>>However, it definitely is a point worth considering when organizing >>>>the next tournament. I would strongly be in favour of a uniform >>>>platform tournament. >>> >>>This is very difficult to define and would exclude all kinds of people >>>and hardware platforms that we might want to participate. >>> >>>I'ld like to see a generally 'fair' tournament. Like in my kids school, >>>they do sport and games. Each year group plays children of the same age. >>>Some children are bigger and fitter and their ages range over 0-12 >>>months difference. >>> >>>This isn't uniform, bit it is kind of fair, in general. What wouldn't be >>>fair, woudl be including players that were 1 or 2 or 3 years older. >>> >>>One thing that troubles me this year (and no doubt all the other years), >>>is that we only get to hear that so and so is using 100,000 TeraHertz at >>>pretty much the last minute (or last month or whatever), certainly after >>>applications have gone in, and also after I've paid my semi-irreversable >>>$1000 and sorted out an operator and all the other things that make the >>>application solid. >>> >>>If I knew, say 12 months before, what the top machine could be, I'ld >>>have time and space to (a) get one myself, (b) decide whether I wanted >>>to go at all, (c) not get pushed into some last minute desperate, >>>expensive effort at trying to compete. We would ALL get off more >>>cheaply, since we wouldn't be tempted to spend megabucks on some rare >>>fast liquid notrogen cooled monster that happended to becoem available a >>>few weeks beforehand. >>> >> >>I don't see how this is an issue. #1 was there any doubt that Dark >>Thought >>or Chess Guru would show up this year? #2 I didn't know any sooner than >>you >>did about the 766mhz machines (which as I have already said, I doubt if >>we >>get one of 'em). We started working on getting an alpha about 2 weeks >>ago, >>and had no problems in getting a decent machine from DEC. > >Dark Thought and Chess Guru. Not heard of the latter, can live with the >former. Neither of them are crowing and shouting and competing in the >forum of programs. > >Ferret and Crafty we hear a lot about. Crafty-crowing has become quite >commonplace recently. So, programs, in with a chance anyway, on normal >hardware; then with 100,000,000 tera-megas flops, seem IMO to be trying >it on; and tryign to get an unfair advantage. I mean if Anance turns up >on a Cray, I wouldn't be concerned. Get it now ? > >Chris would you please define "crafty crowing"? I don't believe I've had a lot to shout about Crafty will win, crafty is better than "x", and so forth. In fact, I believe that I have come up with exactly "0" posts that would fit the above. Dark Thought guys have posted results of their program on r.g.c.c quite frequently when a test position is posted. I don't take it as "crowing." As far as "Ananse"... for all I know, Crafty is going to do poorly anyway. I have *not* done any computer-type tuning, I'm playing with the same code that a couple of GM's are calling "somewhat over-aggressive in trying to win drawn positions and trying to draw lost positions." I simply don't understand what it is about the name "crafty" that strikes such fear into people. Deep Blue I could understand. Crafty I can't... and as for crafty-crowing becoming commonplace, could you be more specific??
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.