TalkChess.com

Houdini wrote:

marcelk wrote:A lot of development is done my many teams in book learning algorithms and book preparation. IMO booking is an essential part of a WCCC.

I perceive a lot of dogmatic thinking in the replies to my simple description of how the TCEC tournament became the most successful tournament of the past 2 years.

Of course a lot of work is done by many teams on "book preparation", but is it relevant to decide which engine is best?

As a chess fan I prefer to see some interesting games starting from move 8 or move 10, rather than a book preparation of 25 or 30 moves.
It's funny how HGM used the expression "test for middle-game engines", when in fact this proposal would have engines play the opening instead of relying on 25 moves of theory.

Robert

I just think there is a difference between testing engine strength and chess entity strength. The engine is only a part of a chess computer. Book, hardware and clustering capability are others. F1 is not about the engine, it is about the car's body, driver and support team also.

Houdini wrote:

chrisw wrote:yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody believes your reasoning here

OK, I'm out of this thread.
Bye.

Why ?

Your call for equal hardware is as old as the existence of computer chess and as such have taken place for decades including an official world title. Nevertheless the unlimited category is another beast, it brings what people interests most, the machine that plays the game of chess best rewarded with a separate world title. The latter is not more worth than the first, everybody understands a 1000cc motor wins from a 250cc one.

So explain why you would single out playing against superior hardware. In the 80's some of us (amateurs and commercials) played against the big mainframes with our 1-2-5-10Mhz micro's. When you lost, everybody understood, anything else was party time.

I think the fans would love to see a championship with things that can have at home,

that is, a published program, not a beta.
And you could buy a hardware without having to stop eating.


it seems to me.

Rebel wrote:

Houdini wrote:

chrisw wrote:yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody believes your reasoning here

OK, I'm out of this thread.
Bye.

Why ?

Your call for equal hardware is as old as the existence of computer chess and as such have taken place for decades including an official world title. Nevertheless the unlimited category is another beast, it brings what people interests most, the machine that plays the game of chess best rewarded with a separate world title. The latter is not more worth than the first, everybody understands a 1000cc motor wins from a 250cc one.

So explain why you would single out playing against superior hardware. In the 80's some of us (amateurs and commercials) played against the big mainframes with our 1-2-5-10Mhz micro's. When you lost, everybody understood, anything else was party time.

when someone runs away from a thread, with a partial delete of a post, it's usually the deleted bit they are running from, not the "excuse" left behind and not deleted. Hence, this suggestion is the one being run from:

"why don't you just suggest to Vas that he enters Rybka in two forms, firstly the giant cluster and secondly on some hardware that roughly parallels yours? The spectators and users ought to be bright enough to work out the consequences of the results ...."

The truth is he just doesn't want to play Cluster Rybka. Even with a "normalised" Rybka competing too. It's a Headline PR thing.

Houdini wrote:

chrisw wrote:yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody believes your reasoning here

OK, I'm out of this thread.
Bye.

Good. It's bizarre having you give lectures on fairness.

Houdini wrote:There is nothing "artificial" about a hardware limitation, you'll find that in most sports. For example Formula 1 limits the hardware to 2400 cc engines: "The engines had to be 90° V8 of 2.4 litres maximum capacity with a 98 mm maximum circular bore, which imply a 39.7 mm minimum stroke. They had to have two circular inlet and exhaust valves per cylinder, be normally aspirated and have a 95 kg (209 lb) minimum weight."
The same in cycling, there are strict limits on the bicycles used.

The goal is the same everywhere: give all participants equal opportunity, and avoid pointless, high-cost hardware wars.

The point is that the limit that is actually chosen is arbitrary, and that you try to set it to a level that favors you most.

Why allow SMP? Much more natural to put a limit at single CPU. It satisfies the 0-1-infinity rule...

Why in fact allow a PC? More people have smartphones than PCs, so it would be more natural to only allow the use of a smartphone!

And of course I am all for limiting the size of the source code, if limits are so natural. Let's put it at 5KB. Than at Fairy-Max can finally get the World Champion Computer Chess title it is is deserving so much!

And I agree with Marcel that opening preparation is an essential part of 'Chess', no matter how much I despise it. You cannot call yourself a Chess Champion in a contest that factors it out. Again it seems you confuse a championship with a mere consumer test In championships it is not important whether people can buy the champion. (In fact the whole idea would be totally ridiculous in most contexts. Can I buy a Carl Lewis when I want to run faster?) Championships are all about who is best, not who is 'best buy'...

Peter Skinner wrote:Well registration is officially open.

The new site design is in place, and registration setup and in place.

Let the fun begin

Peter

Good morning Peter.
How many has entered so far.

Best,
Gerold.

gerold wrote: Good morning Peter.
How many has entered so far.

Best,
Gerold.

Zero thus far which is good. I am making some changes/tweaks to the rules and moving the event to H.G.M's ICS server to reduce the entry fee.

Announcement coming shortly.

Don wrote:

Houdini wrote:

chrisw wrote:yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody believes your reasoning here

OK, I'm out of this thread.
Bye.

Good. It's bizarre having you give lectures on fairness.

I do not find it bizarre.

Robert has his own opinion about fairness.
He thinks that it is fair if other start from Ippolit because he considers it to be public domain.

Not everybody has to agree with him but I expect at least to understand his point of view and not to consider it bizarre.

Uri Blass wrote:

Don wrote:

Houdini wrote:

chrisw wrote:yeah, yeah, yeah, everybody believes your reasoning here

OK, I'm out of this thread.
Bye.

Good. It's bizarre having you give lectures on fairness.

I do not find it bizarre.

Robert has his own opinion about fairness.
He thinks that it is fair if other start from Ippolit because he considers it to be public domain.

When you consider the simple fact that Robert lied about this you can see that your take on this has some flaws. If he believes it to be fair to start from Ippolit sources then why would he lie about doing it himself?

Not everybody has to agree with him but I expect at least to understand his point of view and not to consider it bizarre.

It wasn't what he said about tournaments that was bizarre, it was WHO said it. If Charles Manson were to give a lecture on kindness, that would be bizarre, even if the content itself was sensible.