Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:29:28 10/23/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 1997 at 11:15:35, Chris Whittington wrote: > >On October 23, 1997 at 10:37:30, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 23, 1997 at 08:51:28, Chris Whittington wrote: >> >>> >>>Are you able to phrase anything in non-arrogantese ? >>> >> >>I'd counter with "are you able to carry on a conversation using only >>*one* >>side of your mouth, for at least a little while?" >> >>I find an alpha to avoid getting rolled by PII/300's and other alphas. >>You >>say that is unethical. You get a PII/300 so *you* don't get rolled by >>alphas and PII/300's, and you say *that* is my fault too. I say >>bullshit. > >I'll still get rolled by the alphas, probably the P2 300's and no doubt >some others too. > that's part of the event. I *know* I'll get rolled by someone too. I don't even think about Ferret here, because I know someone on a K6/233 is most likely going to beat me. Speed will help. But it isn't everything. There is always the "luck" factor in addition to knowledge, search extensions, selectivity and other details. >> >>As long as you are behind a little, you want to whine. But given the >>chance to join the horsepower race, your ethical standards go out the >>window and you do exactly what we did, yet we did it for the wrong >>reason, >>while you were "forced" into this and that makes it ok. Again, I say >>"bullshit". I understand "hypocrite" perfectly well. It applies here >>*perfectly*... > >No, I tried very hard to get an agreement. I tried very hard to stop the >arms race. i proposed to you and Bruce that you contact Wullenweber and >negotiate down to the K233's. you didn't. You did zilch. reason: you >WANT the hardware advantage. You WANT desperately to win. This blinds >you to all else. wrong. I want to "not lose because I get out-searched by faster hardware." My position: If, at the Paris event, you guys can't reach some sort of consensus about this, and either (a) make this uniform platform; or (b) clarify that *any* microprocessor is ok and let this turn into some sort of mhz race, then I am simply not going to enter again. It is *not* worth the hassle. If I play, I want a fair chance to win, lose, or draw, that is not dependent on hardware speed differences. But the commercial guys have run this for many years, and this is what *they* wanted. It is what *we* have to live with. If you don't want me back next year, just leave this "floating". I'll organize something on one of the servers to see how I'm doing. But I am not going to play with two sets of "rules"... one written, one not. Would be funny to get DEC to sponsor this event next year and supply 1ghz alphas, or IBM and let them supply 1ghz PPCs. Of course a few are going to have serious porting issues because of assembly. Others are going to have problems with the GUI. I'd be happy however.. Because then there would be *no* faster machines to be had... > >And further, I'm not trying for an advantage (a massive advantage in >your case) over everybody else; I've just positioned myself below you, >Bruce and Dark Thought and whoever else is on alphas, level apparently >with the others on P2 300's and above the supplied machines. Seems >reasonable under the circumstances. Anyway, I'm not expecting or banking >on, or am desperate to win at all costs. > >And Bob, when Mr Moderator in chief starts resorting to high levels of >personal insult, we all know he's lost his case. what personal insult are you talking about? The word "hypocrite" is *not* a personal insult. It says that you say one thing but do another. There is *no* arguing with that, if I recall your position on faster machines, and then the revellation that you are now using one. If that isn't being a hypocrite, what is? > >> >>>> >>>>I want an *exact* multiplier that you find acceptable. IE 1.2X is OK. >>>>You haven't done that. You only say PII is ok, alpha is not. I want a >>>>number to work with... simple, really... >>> >>>I've given one already. Go look for it. >>> >>>Chris >> >> >>yeah, yeah. the PII/300 is ok, but the alpha is not. But I wonder if >>you >>knew Thorsten was searching for a PII/300 a week or so ago? > >No I didn't. Thorsten, as you know, is a loose cannon. He does whatever >he does. Yesterday was the first day he mentioned it to me. This morning >I gave him the go ahead. > >> I assume we >>can >>now close this topic since you are "joining"? Or do we continue with >>these >>groundslug ethics and keep making accusations? > >I make accusations when they are IMO justified. You appear to be getting >personal. May I suggest you refer yourself to yourself and moderate >yourself ..... > >Chris I did. I found nothing needing attention. The only thing "close" to personal is "you say one thing yet do another". But that is *fact* here... No comments about your intelligence, background, personal likes/dislikes, etc. Just a firm, concrete, easy-to-understand synopsis of two weeks of discussion here. That are all moot now, anyway, since you "jumped on the bandwagon." Or in your words, were "dragged screaming and kicking and cursing onto the bandwagon because had already jumped aboard." In your words, "just because *we* did it is no justification for *you* to do it." In this case, actions don't reconcile with words, at all...
This page took 0 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.