Mike S. wrote:
Also, I would to mention that uniform platform was not a problem at all, at the Chess960 computer world championships in Mainz, 2005-2008. Did anyone NOT join them because the hardware was limited?! I don't think so. It's a prove that it can be done, and the software competition is more meaningful under such circumstances.
It has to be noted that the hardware was SPONSORED as were the expenses and the prize money.
In the ICGA tournament, you have to BUY your own hardware, PAY all expenses, PAY to enter, and you get NOTHING if you win.
I wonder why so few people enter in the ICGA and not in Mainz? "Ah, it must be the hardware!" <= Levy
Don't make me laugh.
Nevertheless, I wonder why some seem to mistrust their chess software creations so much, that they need to put their hopes in super hardware and super tuned opening books, instead.
Some people are pretty proud of the code and algorithms they have written to take advantage of "super hardware". It's very difficult. Seems to be unfathomable for some people.
Uri Blass wrote:
World championship are not designed to find which program is best.
There are not enough games for that purpose.
Uri
I agree. The purpose of limiting hardware it not find the best program but to give a chance to other commercial engines to claim the title. There's a perception that a 40 core Rybka practically eliminates the chances of other commercials. Commercial engines need to put "World Champion" on their boxes or in this case websites.
IIRC there was a proposal to create a non-Rybka room in playchess although this is not due to the 40 core hardware.
Some just somehow do not "get it." I don't _want_ to play in an event where Rybka does not play. What would be the point? I didn't _want_ to play in an event without Belle, or deep thought, or hitech, or chess 4.x, depending on who was best at the time. We _wanted_ to compete with the best, as anything else was sort of anti-climatic.
Most will have better hardware than I use, because I don't (any longer) try to jump through any hoops to get access to the latest from AMD or Intel. But that doesn't mean I don't want to compete against someone with better hardware. Perhaps my parallel search is better.
Restrictions are for the unmotivated, or the clueless, or those that just want the "easy road to victory."
Bill Rogers wrote:Vincent
You are right as far as it goes but I think and am pretty sure that a great many others agree with me that times and opinions have changed.
I think what people are interested today is which program plays chess the best on normal hardware, and by that I mean the kind that 90 percet of the public owns. Of course it is easy to say that if you won an 8 core machine you really don't give a hoot, but believe me the majority of the masses can not afford such a machine. Maybe in a few years when that is all that the public can buy but right now it is not the case.
Another thing is that there are appearantely dozens of books available to the public and I have even tried to download a few but to me they were all junk as I don't know how they were incoded so all I see is junk charactors. Good old TSCP books are printed in plain ascii and redable by all but then again they don't compare to the rest of the computer giants.
Please don't construe this as an attack on your posting, it is just the opinion of another chess player/author only.
Bill
In 90s and start 21th century, diep was at millions of cdroms. Its first 'shareware' versions. No i didn't earn a penny with it. Shareware doesn't work. It just gets copied, no one wants to pay for 'shareware'.
My point is, i have had thousands of contacts with chessplayers. NONE of them is interested in a microworldchampionship. Really NOT A SINGLE ONE.
They want to hear about the utmost best mankind can produce, both in hardware and in software.
We had hardware limits in the past. Basically one reason to have it back then was because a supercomputer always won in the 80s and before.
All that stopped. After 1988 not a single supercomputer has ever won a worldtitle. Not even an 'amateur title'.
It always has been PC's beating supercomputers.
Why impose limits if not a single chessplayer wants it?
Just 1 or 2 nerds here in this forum likes to, that's all.
Vincent
I play Chess and I want it. Several of the programmers who take part in WCCC want it. It is also true that several do not. I think David said in his 2nd email that of those that take part, in WCCC, it was spilt 4-4.
Doesn't that say a lot already? 4-4? We average over 40 in the CCT events. The WCCC is in its final death throes anyway...
That is another discussion... It WAS FIDE's tournament to find the FIDE world chess champion, during the process of reunification. Alternatively, I could have used the 1948 world championship tournament as an example for the same, where only five participants played 20 games, each.
You are totally missing the point. In the WCCC events, nobody plays any other program more than one game. Color alone dictates many of the results. That's why I say "this is not about finding which program is best" because there are not enough games to do so. Most WC titles are the result of an extended match between two players, where the likelihood of finding which is the best player is very high.
Mike S. wrote:
Also, I would to mention that uniform platform was not a problem at all, at the Chess960 computer world championships in Mainz, 2005-2008. Did anyone NOT join them because the hardware was limited?! I don't think so. It's a prove that it can be done, and the software competition is more meaningful under such circumstances.
It has to be noted that the hardware was SPONSORED as were the expenses and the prize money.
In the ICGA tournament, you have to BUY your own hardware, PAY all expenses, PAY to enter, and you get NOTHING if you win.
I wonder why so few people enter in the ICGA and not in Mainz? "Ah, it must be the hardware!" <= Levy
Best explanation I have seen so far. Nothing to do with the entry fee, the cost of travel, the two weeks away from work/school it requires. Did I mention the cost? And the time required? Early WCCC events were 5 rounds and participation was great.. Then the ICCA decided it could (a) make money and (b) provide free vacations for officers by making the events very expensive to host and attend. And it has almost died. Would be interesting to see the number of participants plotted against the year of each event. I remember in 1983 we had 34 entrants I believe (NYC where we won). Now they struggle to reach a dozen. And I wonder why? ah, gotta be the hardware issue...
Don't make me laugh.
Nevertheless, I wonder why some seem to mistrust their chess software creations so much, that they need to put their hopes in super hardware and super tuned opening books, instead.
Some people are pretty proud of the code and algorithms they have written to take advantage of "super hardware". It's very difficult. Seems to be unfathomable for some people.
bob wrote:
Would be interesting to see the number of participants plotted against the year of each event. I remember in 1983 we had 34 entrants I believe (NYC where we won). Now they struggle to reach a dozen. And I wonder why? ah, gotta be the hardware issue...
According to the ICGA tournament site 22 entrants in 1983. Record was the WCCC 1999 with 30.
bob wrote:
Would be interesting to see the number of participants plotted against the year of each event. I remember in 1983 we had 34 entrants I believe (NYC where we won). Now they struggle to reach a dozen. And I wonder why? ah, gotta be the hardware issue...
According to the ICGA tournament site 22 entrants in 1983. Record was the WCCC 1999 with 30.
Just checked my paper files and you are right. The slope of the curve is alarmingly negative in any case.
