Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:53:19 10/19/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 1997 at 16:19:55, Robert Hyatt wrote: >After posting one response this morning, something kept gnawing at the >back of my mind, "something is wrong here." But I couldn't put my >finger >on it. Later it hit me. I went to DejaNews, and did a search on >subjects >with "NPS and match" in them. And found the long thread where Ed and I >were debating the importance of NPS. Ed was on his "tactical >sufficiency" >bandwagon, and lo and behold, I found posts from Chris and Thorsten >right >in the middle, all saying the same thing. NPS doesn't matter. When I have program A on a pentium120 and the same program A on a p2/200, and B beats A of course, what is to be said about this ?? That NPS is unimportant ? That B is stronger than B ? From my point of view NPS in unimportant. And we will show this with CSTal. And others show this with THEIR programs that will have less NPS than yours. I followed Chris threads here in CCC. I think he is not right. It doesn't matter which machines you have. It does not help you in Den Haag , and it will not help much anyway. In a few weeks or months AFTER Paris the opponent programs WOULD develop strategies against YOUR programs IF your programs would be sold somewhere. It is easy to create ANTI-Ferret programs or ANTI-crafty programs, I guess. The only fact this does not happen (like it happens against all other commercial programs Hiarcs, Mchess, Rebel, Genius, Fritz, CSTal etc.) is: Your programs do not compete anywhere ! This is - from my point of view - one main reason you are so impressed by your NPS. Because you don't compete. If you would compete, you would lose like all others lose. > >Now, suddenly, NPS does matter. And I suppose I am confused as to what >has >really happened: > >1. You didn't really believe any of the things you were saying in the >NPS debate, but was really only saying them to keep the debate raging. You are confused. Indeed. > >2. You did believe the NPS argument (your side of it) but later changed >your mind. What is the sense of an olympic event when some american or german guys are doped with anabolica or Dec Alpha hardware ? It only proofs: not any female is really female. Some have a dongle, where there should be no dongle. But thats dope. > >I don't see any other explanation. In light of your comments on the NPS >argument, and those of others, this alpha-issue seems to be a non-issue. >*if* you believe what everyone but *me* was saying... > > >Next topic... > >I don't know why Hiarcs withdrew. I have an opinion. If you want to >hear >it, here goes: > > Hiarcs was withdrawn due to fear of losing. It is currently on top of >the SSDF list. It is probably beginning to sell decently. A disaster >in >Paris could reverse that quickly. I strongly believe that any >commercial >program that chooses to avoid the WMCCC is doing so solely for >commercial >reasons. I think you are wrong concerning Hiarcs. I don't like these: he is feared or he is feared discussion. I have seen hiarcs and rebel and mchess and others compete in many tournaments and championships. And they did a good job. I have not seen crafty or ferret or other programs there too. Were you afraid to lose ?? I don't like to lose either. However, there is one difference >between the way I operate and the way the commercial programmers >operate: > >Cray Blitz won the WCCC in 1983 and 1986. By the time 1989 rolled >around, >however, I *knew* we wouldn't win again, unless there was some >unprecedented >luck involved, because of Deep Thought. I had trouble finding machine >time. >I nearly decided to forget about it. But after thinking about this, it >didn't >seem fair to Hsu and company, because if they won without Cray Blitz >being >there, they would have had to endure the "If CB had been there this >would >have been different." I kept after Cray, they finally found a customer >that would let us use their machine. We did, DT won, and there was no >doubt that they were best. Contrast that to the commercial mind-set for >a >minute. Do *everything* based on the bottom line of sales and public >opinion. They didn't go last year. For the same reason they aren't >going >this year. And it doesn't have a thing to do with new versions or >anything >else other than not wanting to take a chance. Perhaps in another year >this >will be amateur only. Doesn't matter to me... I can think of a couple >of >amateur programs I fear more than any of the commercial programs already >and this is going to get better (or worse depending on perspective.) > >So I don't believe for a minute that the "alpha issue" ran Hiarcs off, >nor >kept Genius away, nor Rebel, nor any other program. I think it is a >matter >of "fear" more than anything else. I don't think Mark is feared to lose, nor do I think Ed is afraid or Marty or somebody else. I can only laugh about your statement. maybe you are afraid, but I don't believe Mark would be afraid to play against Ferret or crafty. In fact hiarcs played against ferret once ... >Unfortunate, because I am just as >afraid >of doing badly as anyone else. But *not* so afraid that I won't play. And this is right for all the other you call feared. >If >Crafty loses every game, I'll get to enjoy a year of razzing. But it >will >at least be there. I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is... The money question was not the reason for mark, and not your fear-claims.
This page took 0.02 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.