This use of F1 as an example is wrong.lexdom wrote:Mike S. wrote:
Harvey quotes a statement of Mark Uniacke in the ICGA forum:
http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/p ... rt=20#p253Hi Rémi,
I am not member of the CCC group or an active reader of the CCC forum but I have heard about these negative comments. In the one post I was told about I saw Vincent Diepeveen claimed he spoke to me online and that the proposal of a hardware limit came from me - both of these claims by Vincent are a complete fabrication. I prefer to not get dragged into all the mud slinging that goes on in these forums since it drains the energy from what is important but I needed to point that out to you in case you were under the wrong impression.
I have to say that if the production of violent anger is the driving force in changing decisions then we have mob rule and intimidation. Surely these are not the attributes on which to change or make decisions.
The first I heard of this hardware limit idea was when I receieved the general email from Johanna Hellemons about the proposal. I did respond in favour of it and I remain in favour of it. Judging from what you have said perhaps that is enough to get me lynched by some?
I don't think we can base a decision change on the fact one or two programmers may want to invest huge resources into expensive hardware since were we to do that the emphasises would be on any other programmers to do the same if they to want to compete. Otherwise this could be seen as being akin to someone trying to buy the title.
What is the purpose of the WCCC?
Surely it is to have a competition between the world's top chess systems for the title of World Champion. If the disparity between the hardware of each "competitor" is so great that the chances of success for most competitors is almost nil it no longer becomes a competition but instead a procession.
Recently we have seen the long standing Paderborn tournament cancelled because there were insufficient entries. Why would this be?
I believe it is because the overwhelming majority of people see little chance of competing on a level playing field because the hardware being used by the strongest programs is now so much faster than the other potential competitors that the race is practically run before it has started.
Contrary to popular opinion selling chess software makes a very limited income and certainly not one that can allow us to compete in a hardware race. The same is true of nearly all the other commercial authors let alone the amateur ones. Perhaps those in academia might be able to harness the necessary resources but for the majority it is only a dream.
In the last two tournaments alone, in terms of hardware, even though we were on faster h/w than many others we were about a factor of 5 behind some other contestants. Eventually we like apparently everyone else has to ask if it is worth the cost and effort of trying to maintain a presence in an expensive losing "hardware arms race".
We enter each competition with the target to win it, if that no longer becomes a possibility then we have to ask what is the point of entering. Apparently the same is true of the vast majority of other programmers since they are voting with their feet and not entering these tournaments.
We are willing to give up our h/w advantage to see a more level playing field since I believe that makes for a more exciting and competitive competition. Some disagree with me and prefer no limits but in the knowledge that competition is stifled.
I think Formula-1 racing is a good example with commonality to our situation. Each team can select their own driver, engine, chassis and other components within a framework of rules. That framework is reviewed on an on-going basis just as the ICGA has undertaken to review this decision. The purpose of the framework in F1 is to make the competition more competitive and allow more teams to compete than would be the case if there were no limits. Surely this is a good thing?
Best wishes,
Mark
The F1 is not limited to even out the playing field. It is limited for safey reasons. All the teams are allowed to put in the most expensive car that meets the safey rules of the car.
http://www.atlasf1.com/2000/bra/preview/ward.html
Code: Select all
As each area of car design reaches a peak or plateau of performance, this performance is limited and controlled - even banned completely - by the F1 technical regulations to ensure that the cars do not become so fast and powerful that they become overly dangerous or even undriveable. The fundamental principle is that performance should not exceed safety standards and the limits of drivers' cognition and response times.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/09/22/t ... get-4456m/
Code: Select all
Toyota: $445.6m
McLaren: $433.3m
Ferrari: $414.9m
Honda: $398.1m
Renault: $393.8m
BMW Sauber: $366.8m
Red Bull Racing: $164.7m
Williams: $160.6m
Toro Rosso: $128.2m
Force India: $121.85m
Super Aguri: $45.6m
In contrast, they want to limit the WCCC to the home PC.
OK, now if they really want a limit, and they are using F1 as an example, then the limit should be like "the machine should not consume 1GW of power - or it will be unsafe to the operators".