A prediction !

[mclane]

yes rybka is very much ahead.

but this is no contradiction to the discussion that a uniform platform tournament is a good idea.

[hgm]

Actually all it needs is interest. I have the hardware. If everyone provides a winboard (or UCI via polyglot) program, I can run 'em all on my cluster here and play the mother of all tournaments using one cpu per program, or using 2 if everyone agrees.

But the result is not so interesting IMHO, because it has nothing to do with how the strongest play on their "native" hardware. I test like this all the time (uniform platform) to produce consistent results. But I don't run like that in tournaments.

I think you are greatly exaggerating this:

There are hardly any programs that could not run on a PC under Windows. Compilers for all languages are available on every platform, and even Apples nowadays use Intel CPUs, so assembler programs would have no problems too. Only hardware-based entities could not compete. And why should they? They are different beasts altogether. Humans would not be allowed to compete either. This would be a contest between programs.

And of course it is done all the time, like I remarked above, and with very few problems. The "mother of all tournaments" on equal hadware is actually done several times a year (Chess War / Open War) for anyone that cares to enlist his engine. Of course on a single computer, rater than a cluster, it requires patience to complete the tournament. But that is no problem. People that developed their program for another platform can usually find a compiler expert that is willing to make a compile tuned to the platform on which the tourney is run.

[frankp]

Somewhat arrogant to require MS Windows as the uniform platform.

From a practical point of view it would require spending money, losing freedom, increasing insecurity and funding a questionable monopoly.

[Zach Wegner]

Somewhat arrogant to require MS Windows as the uniform platform.

From a practical point of view it would require spending money, losing freedom, increasing insecurity and funding a questionable monopoly.

Seconded! I would most definitely not join a Windows-only tournament.

[bob]

Actually all it needs is interest. I have the hardware. If everyone provides a winboard (or UCI via polyglot) program, I can run 'em all on my cluster here and play the mother of all tournaments using one cpu per program, or using 2 if everyone agrees.

But the result is not so interesting IMHO, because it has nothing to do with how the strongest play on their "native" hardware. I test like this all the time (uniform platform) to produce consistent results. But I don't run like that in tournaments.

I think you are greatly exaggerating this:

There are hardly any programs that could not run on a PC under Windows. Compilers for all languages are available on every platform, and even Apples nowadays use Intel CPUs, so assembler programs would have no problems too. Only hardware-based entities could not compete. And why should they? They are different beasts altogether. Humans would not be allowed to compete either. This would be a contest between programs.

And of course it is done all the time, like I remarked above, and with very few problems. The "mother of all tournaments" on equal hadware is actually done several times a year (Chess War / Open War) for anyone that cares to enlist his engine. Of course on a single computer, rater than a cluster, it requires patience to complete the tournament. But that is no problem. People that developed their program for another platform can usually find a compiler expert that is willing to make a compile tuned to the platform on which the tourney is run.

That might or not be true. For example, I have heard of one GPU project going on. That is not going to run on a "standard windows box and hardware". And many other past examples, from special-purpose hardware versions (DB, Belle, etc) to specific hardware feature dependencies (Cray Blitz and vectors). It is an OK idea, but it is not _the_ way to hold serious tournaments. I spent a lot of time doing a parallel search. All that effort becomes wasted effort if run on a single-cpu machine. Someone that did _not_ develop a parallel search therefore has an unfair advantage because they spent more time on the non-parallel stuff.

If you pick the biggest, baddest box available, and let everyone run, that is closer to reasonable. If someone can't use 8 cpus, that's their decision then.
BUt putting everyone into a "one-size-fits-all" box at least stifles development.

[Zach Wegner]

I think the WCCC should always allow as much hardware as possible. They would be incredibly boring to me with uniform hardware. WCCCs are great because they always bring out the big iron (no supercomputers have played in a CCT to my knowledge).

And despite what the original poster would have you believe, I think it's pretty cool that Rybka is running on a cluster. It may just be adding insult to injury, but it's a lot more interesting than some run-of-the-mill desktop PC.

[hgm]

Somewhat arrogant to require MS Windows as the uniform platform.

From a practical point of view it would require spending money, losing freedom, increasing insecurity and funding a questionable monopoly.

That has nothing to do with arrogance. It is just paying attention to the facts of life. Most engines are available as Windows executable, and those that are not can be made available as such, at no cost to the author. You have to pick something, and it gobally more efficient to make the minority adapt. Those that want to abuse a universal tourament for the purpose of promoting one platform over an other, should not be welcomed in the firt place.

And... ZCT is competing in Chess War. Under Windows...

[sje]

Somewhat arrogant to require MS Windows as the uniform platform.

From a practical point of view it would require spending money, losing freedom, increasing insecurity and funding a questionable monopoly.

Well spoken.

Additionally, there are programs like Symbolic that make extensive use of Posix features including thread manipulation that have no Windows equivalent. Furthermore, there may be programs with gcc/g++ compilation dependencies that would require extensive modification before being built by native Windows tools.

[Zach Wegner]

That has nothing to do with arrogance. It is just paying attention to the facts of life. Most engines are available as Windows executable, and those that are not can be made available as such, at no cost to the author. You have to pick something, and it gobally more efficient to make the minority adapt. Those that want to abuse a universal tourament for the purpose of promoting one platform over an other, should not be welcomed in the firt place.

But why would there be a required OS in the first place? Would it really be so bad to allow a person to install their own OS?

And... ZCT is competing in Chess War. Under Windows...

I'm talking about tournaments where the authors enter their engines. I'd consider Chess War more of a rating list (though it is run as a "tournament".) Yes, ZCT does run under Windows, but it's only because I made a special effort to ensure that my program is usable on as many platforms as possible. I.e. it is done for the users, not for Bill Gates. My point is merely principle. I would not enter a tournament that required me to use Windows. What TDs choose to do with my program is their business (and I do appreciate their efforts).

[frankp]

Somewhat arrogant to require MS Windows as the uniform platform.

From a practical point of view it would require spending money, losing freedom, increasing insecurity and funding a questionable monopoly.

That has nothing to do with arrogance. It is just paying attention to the facts of life. Most engines are available as Windows executable, and those that are not can be made available as such, at no cost to the author. You have to pick something, and it gobally more efficient to make the minority adapt. Those that want to abuse a universal tourament for the purpose of promoting one platform over an other, should not be welcomed in the firt place.

And... ZCT is competing in Chess War. Under Windows... :?

I am not sure of the purpose of the vitriol in the last sentence: one platform will necessarily be promoted. Choosing MS Windows is rational for the reasons you give (although as you said compilers are available to easy recompile to Linux, for example), but others may not necessarily regard convenience in total as the only basis of choice. Describing this as 'abuse' is rather strong IMHO.