Indeed. It requires the best every participant can give of itself.Mike S. wrote: By that I meant to say, a WCh. title doesn't require ultimate statistical relevance.
And by limiting the hardware we restrict participants.
You avoided to answer to several posts here and i guess it is because you couldn't. Because these posts exploited how ridiculous are most of these you were saying.
•Jens excellent post for example.
Not make me to repeat it it's at the end of this topic. In short what he says is that as all of you say this rule is for leveling competition to software that all can buy so there are no injustices. But is a 8 core Skulltrail really cheap for all? Let's get real. No!
If they wanted a hardware that all can afford they should put the limit to 4 cores. They didn't.
He pointed out also another valid argument about how expensive a cluster can really be. Not too much it's the truth. So we don't have all that stupid statements of astronomical hardware etc.
•I also said that this is a "World Computer Chess Championship" and NOT a "World Engines Chess Championship" that you want to transform it with your limiting rules.
Computer Chess player means hardware CPU/RAM/HDD plus software(engine), plus data files like learning, opening books, EGTBs etc.
And every team in a WCCC has to have the best possible combination of these it can get. This is how World Champions work. And fair and unfair rules are meaningless to even discuss. If you can't buy a 80 core machine and some other can, so be it. Why the rest should care?
World champs are for the best and not for the whiners.
•Dr. Hyatt also made many many excellent points rejecting your and ICGA arguments but they had been ignored by you. They haven't been answered.
I know why of course. There can't be no argument to disprove that sun rises from the east.
Kasparov in his days was crushing everyone. So do you propose when he went in a tournament, the tournament officials should restrict him in any way because his extraordinary abilities of playing Chess that were better than the others?So much for statistics and world champion titles.
For example as we can't remove him any part of him obviously as in computers, would it make sense to restrict him in thinking less time from his opponents to level competition?
All these make no sense at all for me and for MOST people as i read here, in Rybkaforum, in ICGA forum and in every place i have read about it.
I have created 2 polls one here and one in Rybka forum.
Results are here:
81% here want an unlimited tournament while 17% a limited one.
Results in Rybkaforum are:
62% want an unlimited tournament while 35% a limited one.
In ICGA so far i see 7 programmers want an unlimited tournament and 0(zero) a limited one.
By reading also here the opinions of programmers that didn't add their opinion to ICGA forum, i can add 7 more programmers that are in favor of unlimited tournament.
So can we say is the rule change logical?
Conclusions are yours.