The topic at hand was the knowledge about the use or non-use of large clusters like the current Rybka cluster. They knew immediately of the ruling against systems with more than 8 cores, and that was the point that sparked outrage. Whether a small 8-core cluster rather than an octacore machine was used is small peanuts in a handicap tournament.
Watchman wrote:
turbojuice1122 wrote:Also, you seem to have an extremely short memory: Rybka won the handicap event, too.
So what? What is your point? Well?
My point was responding to this statement of yours in the previous post:
Watchman wrote:If there is any handicap it is self-imposed: Vas & Lukas (e.g.) pursued cluster development over MP development. They attempted a little innovation and were caught flat-footed by a tournament rule change. That is no one's fault but their own.
They weren't caught "flat-footed"--they had the superior product in any case--it's just that the rule change took away some of the opportunity to test it against the best computer opposition available.
Watchman wrote:
turbojuice1122 wrote:Rybka 3 can use all eight cores of an octacore just as well as Zappa (at least, any differences are negligible now, quite unlike versions before Rybka 3). There is no more MP improvement to attain that would be useful within the current rule limits anyway.
Wow Turbo I am impressed... you speak as if you are Vas himself. Tell me tho (since you are not Vas and there is a chance you are just regurgitating his words) you own an Octa? Please tell me you do. And tell me you have been using Zappa for the last year+ on this octa and R3 on it since its release. Sounds to me you are quite the programming expert (with first-hand knowledge of the code) and work as a beta tester.
I trust what Vas and Lukas say concerning testing, since this is what they do specifically, particularly Lukas. They were forthright about Rybka's disadvantage when Zappa had the lead in this department by a large margin, so they have no reason not to be here. No, I don't own an octacore--I defer to Vas and Lukas, i.e. those who have made MP implementation and testing a very high priority in the development of Rybka 3, as well as the results of many other people who have octacores. The kn/s numbers, which make sense more for Rybka than for any other engine in terms of gauging scalability, show that the difference in this department now between Rybka and Zappa is small. I seem to recall Lukas saying sometime ago that Rybka may even have a small advantage in this now; I'm sure that overall, the small differences depend on the system.
Watchman wrote:
turbojuice1122 wrote:The use of the word "handicap" is meant as a joke to parody the fact that the ruling is stupid
It's no joke to hear your incessant whining about it. Btw... who taught you to debate? To employ an impotent attack like "it's stupid" is unimaginative and demonstrates absolutely zilch in the critical thinking department.
I was simply explaining why the word "handicap" is used by those putting a humorous spin on a stupid rule change. Obviously if the debate is directly over the rule change itself, then I wouldn't lightly dismiss the argument if I'm taking so much time to argue about it and discuss points of view from both sides. However, I wasn't doing that here--that is in a different thread. Here, I was discussing the use of the word "handicap" and why those who use it use it like that.
He's talking about the development of the Rybka cluster, and I think that he is mistaken here. The rule change prevented Rybka from being able to play against as many strong opponents with good preparation by taking away the incentive for them to come with a cluster version (having a separate "Olympiad" tournament simply adds to complications if it's not considered part of the main tournament). It also takes away from the motivation of others developing clusters if there is no publicity in the games of these clusters in an official venue, such as there has been in the case of Hydra, GridChess, and Rybka in recent years.
Watchman wrote:
turbojuice1122 wrote: and "levels the playing field" for those who do not have the necessary innovations that will be standard in a few years.
I have already said "levels the playing field" is a good thing for these tourneys.
Then it's changing what much of the philosophy (and indeed the name itself, "World
Computer Chess Championship) that has been in the tournament in previous years. The "separate tournament" should be the one that is hardware limited, and should have a name similar to something similar that has been used in the past: the World Microcomputer Chess Championship. There is no reason not to resurrect this and make this separate from what people consider the "main event" instead of creating this new event and calling it the "main event".
Watchman wrote:
But your vision of this (MP) innovation becoming a standard? First let me do an "I Dream of Jeanie Boing" so that all PCs have attained the highly prized (and long sought for) status of "appliance." Ok, What application(s) for the home user do you envision benefiting from this technology?
Notice the change in one word above compared with what you wrote.
With the same logic (which I believe is flawed), this would have been considered a legitimate question a few years ago.