(1.) The absolute Computer Chess World Champion(everything unlimited)
(2.) The Uniform Platform Computer Chess World Champion(consumer-orientated hardware limit; other limits like for opening books are debateable IMO but I won't stress that.)
Some will say, what do we need (2) for, or I am only interested in (1). Others will say, (1) is meaningless for me, or with the equipment I can afford I have no chance in (1). So, this proposal is only for people who can accept, and want to handle compromises. A compromise can provide the chance to include all parties of interest, unlike when an extreme position wins and others are excluded (for whatever reason or in whatever role).
I think it can be done if up to two entries are allowed, per participant. But in that case, one entry would have to play for (2.) with limited hardware. In case of only one entry, he should have the free choice of category. Maybe a long swiss tournament could be done in a way that whenever possible, the category of the opponent is switched, round by round (like the switch of colors).
The idea of uniform platform raises the problem - which maybe also is a chance though - to find a sponsor for the required number of identical computers, on site.
Alternatively, the particpants would need to bring in "very similar" hardware for category (2). But I think that is only the second best choice, because even with adjustments, they can probably not be standardized in the sense of uniform platform. - Or the requirement for / definition of "consumer-orientated hardware limit" is regulated in a way that it allows a certain bandwidth. Limiting the number of cores only, seems very general.
Also, for now - but probably not for the near future - I think 4 cores would be a better limit, because as explained by Jens, there are huge cost and performance differences within an 8 core limit, still. We have had similar thoughts here, because the same topic was being discussed at the Rybka forum some time ago too, where I had suggested u.p. with quads.
As for the verification of how many cores are used: This just cannot be a problem in a place where computer experts gather together. For example, Microsoft's Process Explorer doesn't even need to be installed, so the tournament director could have it on an USB stick. So nobody can hack it to display a faked CPU load (in case if lovers of conspiracy theories had such concerns
). There are also free CPU identification tools, like CPU-Z.http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysi ... 96653.aspx
(I am almost sure that such ready-to-run tools also exist for Linux and Mac, but I don't know it.)
Anyway, I am aware myself that my proposal is not very realistic, but it should show that a compromise is possible, at least as something "theoretically imaginable"...
