hgm wrote:It seems that 8 cores would be a good number for this, at the current level of technology: most CPUs come as quads nowadays, and soon they will come as octals.
Oh, I found the e-mail from ICGA in my inbox, and I see this is exactly what they proposed as well, for the 2009 event.
And there will be separate classes, of some sort: The games olympiad will have a Chess tournement as well, where there is no hardware limitation. So programs that feel the need to surpass the 8-core limitation can compete there.
I think this is a very sensible solution.
That presents an entertaining idea:
Have multiple divisions (weight classes) and you enter your weight class.
The question becomes: can you enter all weight classes.
Can single proc X enter the single proc division while 4 proc X enters
the 4 proc division and so on?
The issue with that and/or only allowing 1 entry for the tournament
is policing it. Some come with a laptop and remotely access the
engine hardware. How are they going to prove which hardware is
being used remotely?
I guess only the unlimited division would be allowed remote hardware.
Don't think I like that idea either. The cost of shipping hardware from the
US to the other half of the world is prohibitive.
Spock wrote: It is naive to think that event that can be "won by a simple weight of processing power".
Okay please feel free to correct me if I am wrong here, was not Deep Blue a pretty weak program knowledge-wise when compared to programs like Shredder or Hiarcs of that period. Did not the massive difference in hardware used by Deep Blue help it to over come this weakness by allowing it to look deeper in the position.
I do not believe deep blue was a "pretty weak program knowledge-wise". I ran a test last week that showed that a "knowledge-weak" crafty dropped over 400 points, and quite possibly more since I did not have any opponents that weak to test against.
DB did all the usual things with pawn structure, piece evaluation, etc. Whether hiarcs did more or not is absolutely impossible to assess since the DB guys were the _only_ ones that actually published what they did (besides us open-source folks of course). So they could claim anything they wanted to claim and there was no way to prove otherwise. Vincent always had the "Diep contains more chess knowledge than any program ever written" type statement on his Diep web site. And there's no way to verify or refute the claim.
DB was _very_ strong. Due to both hardware _and_ software.
They used to have the "on site" requirement for microcomputer entrants when the ICCA had two divisions. The longer the discussion continues, the more flaws will be exposed. That's why the _programmers_ voted to end the division idea several years ago. The ICCA resisted, for reasons unknown, but finally realized that the "division approach" was not workable.
Now they take several more steps backward by doing this...
bob wrote:They used to have the "on site" requirement for microcomputer entrants when the ICCA had two divisions. The longer the discussion continues, the more flaws will be exposed. That's why the _programmers_ voted to end the division idea several years ago. The ICCA resisted, for reasons unknown, but finally realized that the "division approach" was not workable.
Now they take several more steps backward by doing this...
I was there in 2002 when we voted for the change, but the discussion didn't
start out that way.
It started with people trying to redefine the term PC. I repeated the
age old suggestion of "anything that fits on top of a desk". It is a reasonable
open definition. But, some others didn't like it due to Chrilly's work in
FPGA systems. When the attempt to rule out FPGA systems failed,
the tide turned to abolishing the divisions.
We discussed the historical data which revealed there did not
exist a correlation between size of hardware and winning the tournament.
PC's were just as competitive as mainframes and supercomputers, so
it didn't make sense to have seperate tournaments. Then we voted
to drop the microcomputer championships and have the WCCC yearly.
Spock wrote:It is naive to think that event that can be "won by a simple weight of processing power". That devalues the efforts of, and is insulting to, all the programmers.
It certainly looks to me as though all the programmers have ganged up on Rybka and lobbied the ICGA for their own means. Nevertheless, I support this decision. I *do not* like to see such a huge hardware differential, it takes some of the fun and competition out of it. I would however have made the maximum 4 cores not 8. An 8 core machine can be bought off specialist suppliers, but you can't walk into PC World and buy one.
What do you mean?
You can get a dual quad core server from Dell for under $1000.
IMHO, the ones wanting this restriction are basically saying "I am not intelligent enough to develop a parallel/distributed search that works, and since I can't do it, I don't want anyone else to be able to use their fancy stuff that I don't know how to develop to be able to compete with them..."
This or they just can't afford so much money for having such a hardware.
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
On behalf of GCP i am posting the following message since his account is still not working:
Dear all,
this proposal is an incredibly bad idea. It is based on various mistaken
assumptions, accomplishes absolutely nothing, stifles innovation and
research
in an important subject, and makes the World Championships redundant.
First of all, it assumes that by arbitrarily limiting the number of
cores to
8, this will prevent an arms race or prevent someone from buying the
championship. This is false. A participant with more money will still be
able
to buy a faster CPU, cool it better, and overclock it faster. In fact,
it is
easier to "buy" the championship if only clockspeed is an issue. If you buy
more cores, you still have to be able to make use of them. This is a very
difficult task, particularly for many CPUs, and an extremely important
research subject, which is gaining in importance every day. That the
ICGA is
now saying they do not want any more innovation in this area looks somewhat
like a misplaced April's fools joke.
Secondly, if the idea is to find the best program and put everybody on
equal
footing, then just make the event uniform platform. It will be easier to
find
a sponsor if he can supply all the machines and they are actually used. It
also removes the burden of travelling with hardware for participants out of
Europe. The "money" to buy hardware will also no longer be a factor.
There is
will be no discussion about what 8 cores means. Making the event uniform
platform has no disadvantages compared to the ICGA proposal and many
advantages. (But I'm not saying it's a good idea!)
Third, the idea that such a restriction is necessary because the World
Championship is about finding the best program is silly. The World
Championship is currently about finding the best combination of hardware,
software and opening books. Removing hardware out of the equation still
leaves an important issue (books) untreated. If the idea is to find the
best
software, there are already other organisations doing that job (CCRL, CEGT)
and there is no need for the ICGA to become the third.
Fourth, organizing a second tournament where there are no restrictions
makes
the World Championship look like a sideevent. The strongest combinations
will
be in that "Computer Olympiad Open Chess Championship". The people playing
the World Championship will be the wannabees. What about people who want to
play in both?
Fifth, 8 core CPUs were available the last tournament, but still half the
participants did not use them. If the idea is that one should not be
able to
buy the tournament, clearly 8 cores is still out of reach for most people
(this is not expected to change in the coming months either, with dual
socket
mainboards still being quite a bit more expensive than regular ones). It is
right now in fact cheaper to build a 16 core cluster than to buy a fast 8
core machine (a real, non-hyperthreading one!).
Sixth, hardware evolution is now quickly reaching towards a manycore world,
where 8 in some cases already looks like an ancient relic. The
definition of
core is also getting more hazy. If the ICGA wants to stick to this
extremely
misguided rule, it might be a good idea to clarify as soon as possible what
exactly is meant by "8 cores". (Vincent has in the meantime elaborated this
point with regards to hyperthreading and graphics cards, in addition to his
questions I also want to ask how they are defined for FPGAs?).
chessfurby wrote:On behalf of GCP i am posting the following message since his account is still not working:
Dear all,
this proposal is an incredibly bad idea. It is based on various mistaken
assumptions, accomplishes absolutely nothing, stifles innovation and
research
in an important subject, and makes the World Championships redundant.
First of all, it assumes that by arbitrarily limiting the number of
cores to
8, this will prevent an arms race or prevent someone from buying the
championship. This is false. A participant with more money will still be
able
to buy a faster CPU, cool it better, and overclock it faster. In fact,
it is
easier to "buy" the championship if only clockspeed is an issue. If you buy
more cores, you still have to be able to make use of them. This is a very
difficult task, particularly for many CPUs, and an extremely important
research subject, which is gaining in importance every day. That the
ICGA is
now saying they do not want any more innovation in this area looks somewhat
like a misplaced April's fools joke.
Secondly, if the idea is to find the best program and put everybody on
equal
footing, then just make the event uniform platform. It will be easier to
find
a sponsor if he can supply all the machines and they are actually used. It
also removes the burden of travelling with hardware for participants out of
Europe. The "money" to buy hardware will also no longer be a factor.
There is
will be no discussion about what 8 cores means. Making the event uniform
platform has no disadvantages compared to the ICGA proposal and many
advantages. (But I'm not saying it's a good idea!)
Third, the idea that such a restriction is necessary because the World
Championship is about finding the best program is silly. The World
Championship is currently about finding the best combination of hardware,
software and opening books. Removing hardware out of the equation still
leaves an important issue (books) untreated. If the idea is to find the
best
software, there are already other organisations doing that job (CCRL, CEGT)
and there is no need for the ICGA to become the third.
Fourth, organizing a second tournament where there are no restrictions
makes
the World Championship look like a sideevent. The strongest combinations
will
be in that "Computer Olympiad Open Chess Championship". The people playing
the World Championship will be the wannabees. What about people who want to
play in both?
Fifth, 8 core CPUs were available the last tournament, but still half the
participants did not use them. If the idea is that one should not be
able to
buy the tournament, clearly 8 cores is still out of reach for most people
(this is not expected to change in the coming months either, with dual
socket
mainboards still being quite a bit more expensive than regular ones). It is
right now in fact cheaper to build a 16 core cluster than to buy a fast 8
core machine (a real, non-hyperthreading one!).
Sixth, hardware evolution is now quickly reaching towards a manycore world,
where 8 in some cases already looks like an ancient relic. The
definition of
core is also getting more hazy. If the ICGA wants to stick to this
extremely
misguided rule, it might be a good idea to clarify as soon as possible what
exactly is meant by "8 cores". (Vincent has in the meantime elaborated this
point with regards to hyperthreading and graphics cards, in addition to his
questions I also want to ask how they are defined for FPGAs?).
Gian-Carlo Pascutto,
author of Sjeng and Leela
I completely agree with Gian-Carlo, a matter of principle - world champs are about the strongest combination of hardware and software (including book). I have sympathies for "on site" requirement though
Gerd Isenberg wrote:I completely agree with Gian-Carlo, a matter of principle - world champs are about the strongest combination of hardware and software (including book). I have sympathies for "on site" requirement though
Gerd
So who exactly did support this? The only programmer I know of is H.G., and he didn't seem to be all that vocal about it. Harvey Williamson said he was involved. Doesn't really seem too fair if no programmers at all were consulted, but that should be expected...
