Mark Boon wrote: > Please, don't sneer.
??? I have seen a lot of discussion, but no good reasons that make sense for the decision that was made. What Davy Dyer said IS a good reason, and most likely the real one. But the people in favor of the decision will not like to admit this. So it's good that at least one person realizes it. > We are trying to make computers play Go as well as possible. The decision does not affect the Go tournament at all, where 3000 CPU clusters are still fully allowed to compete against single CPU programs. The thing is that in Go the small hardware is still beating the bigger one. In chess, one team is firmly dominating (Rybka), and they have since last year also managed to acquire the best hardware (40 core cluster). This makes them essentially unbeatable. And clearly, some of their commercial competitors have a problem with that. > So it seems arbitrary to put limitations on the hardware. However, if > two programs are essentially the same, but one side manages to bring > a more powerful computer than the other, is it fair to award one > program a prize and not the other? If the programmer has done the needed work to make use of that, obviously he deserves to be rewarded for that. -- GCP _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
