Christopher Conkie wrote:
Surely an unlimited use of hardware encourages larger hardware and not better search and eval?
No.
(If you want an explanation why, just look up the 100 other threads about this)
Please give us 100 links I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?
Well the audience is important, as well as the players. Delicate balance. If the players don't like the rules, they won't play, and if the audience don't like the rules they won't follow the tournament. Maybe some players won't care about that, but I do believe that is what the WCCC is all about - putting on a show for the chess community. So in a way the people shouting on the forums' opinions are the most valuable of all.
I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.
The other question is of course is the WCCC for those that shout on the forums or hopefully the wider Chess community and attracting new interest.
Last edited by Harvey Williamson on Sat Jun 13, 2009 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Harvey Williamson wrote:
I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.
OK - well I think the current approach is right, put it to a proper formal vote amongst the players in the last 5 yrs, and then everyone needs to respect the outcome. I'm pleased this is happening. Players can choose to participate or not, entirely up to them. Then run with it, and see what happens
Christopher Conkie wrote:
Surely an unlimited use of hardware encourages larger hardware and not better search and eval?
No.
(If you want an explanation why, just look up the 100 other threads about this)
Please give us 100 links I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?
Well the audience is important, as well as the players. Delicate balance. If the players don't like the rules, they won't play, and if the audience don't like the rules they won't follow the tournament. Maybe some players won't care about that, but I do believe that is what the WCCC is all about - putting on a show for the chess community. So in a way the people shouting on the forums' opinions are the most valuable of all.
I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.
Pssst.... Pssst.... [whisper] He won the event before... Maybe his opinion worths a bit more... [/whisper]
Christopher Conkie wrote:
Surely an unlimited use of hardware encourages larger hardware and not better search and eval?
No.
(If you want an explanation why, just look up the 100 other threads about this)
Please give us 100 links I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?
Well the audience is important, as well as the players. Delicate balance. If the players don't like the rules, they won't play, and if the audience don't like the rules they won't follow the tournament. Maybe some players won't care about that, but I do believe that is what the WCCC is all about - putting on a show for the chess community. So in a way the people shouting on the forums' opinions are the most valuable of all.
I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.
Pssst.... Pssst.... [whisper] He won the event before... Maybe his opinion worths a bit more... [/whisper]
Miguel
So did we and at least 2 others who support a rule change - and combined the 3 have a domination of WCCC so maybe they should count more? IMHO THEY SHOULD NOT ITS 1 TEAM 1 VOTE. - if they bothered to turn up, and pay the required entry fee, in the last 5 years.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.
This is a good point. At least, it would be, if it was correct.
Bob has stated many times that the reason he doesn't participate any more is because of inept decisions made by the ICGA. Now, would you rather say, "good riddance!", or try and change some of these decisions to get _former_ participants to come back?
Harvey Williamson wrote:I do somewhat agree - but what I object to is Bob using the 'Royal we' when clearly he has no intention of playing and has not played in the last 5 years so his opinion is just as valid as yours Ray.
This is a good point. At least, it would be, if it was correct.
Bob has stated many times that the reason he doesn't participate any more is because of inept decisions made by the ICGA. Now, would you rather say, "good riddance!", or try and change some of these decisions to get _former_ participants to come back?
i would say Bob has 1 vote the same as anyone else. And seems I got it wrong that he has not played - but his vote should not be cast as a we - it is just as valid as anyone elses - no more no less. Although he has clearly stated he will not play again so maybe it is less?!
Sorry but it isn't. We were polled this year, but then told "it is too late to change it back" even though no one had voted to change it to 8-core-max in the first place. The ICGA will do what it wants, or what it is pressured to do by parties unknown.
I know that several voted for the limit. Although last time it was not a formal vote. At the players meeting in Pamplona many favoured the limit or uniform hardware.
Maybe you are using the 'Royal' we?
I am using the "we" from the past 34 years of WCCC events, which started in 1974.
Sorry but it isn't. We were polled this year, but then told "it is too late to change it back" even though no one had voted to change it to 8-core-max in the first place. The ICGA will do what it wants, or what it is pressured to do by parties unknown.
I know that several voted for the limit. Although last time it was not a formal vote. At the players meeting in Pamplona many favoured the limit or uniform hardware.
Maybe you are using the 'Royal' we?
I am using the "we" from the past 34 years of WCCC events, which started in 1974.
Who cares? It is the 21st Century 2009 - those who play now have to vote you can not claim proxy votes for all since 1974.
Last edited by Harvey Williamson on Sat Jun 13, 2009 7:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Sorry but it isn't. We were polled this year, but then told "it is too late to change it back" even though no one had voted to change it to 8-core-max in the first place. The ICGA will do what it wants, or what it is pressured to do by parties unknown.
Why do you think it should be unlimited?
Surely an unlimited use of hardware encourages larger hardware and not better search and eval?
Not at all. A parallel search that uses 2-4 cores is extremely non-trivial and requires a ton of work and more debugging. Using 8+ cores is even harder and requires more work. Using a cluster is harder still.
We have a parallel here in football whereby the richest clubs always win because they can buy the best players. This is why the World Cup (country based) is more important than any club tournament.
If the "world champion" is not the best in the world, then what does the title mean?
Harvey Williamson wrote:I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?
Maybe a few didn't play anymore because they don't like what's happening with the event. Like the 8-core rule.
Organizations which only listen to happy customers usually don't last long.
If you eliminate every thing that gets one negative vote, and convert that methodology into an algebraic equation, and take the limit of that equation as time advances toward infinity, you get "zero".
You are exactly correct. The World Champion should be the best in the world. It was in the case of chess 4.x on a Cyber 176 supercomputer, it was in the case of Belle on custom-designed machine, it was in the case of Cray Blitz on a multi-CPU supercomputer, it was in the case of deep thought with a bevy of custom-designed chess processors. "Best" means "best".
I would also like to know of those shouting on the forums how many have played in the last 5 years?
