Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 13:48:26 10/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2003 at 16:15:57, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 04, 2003 at 15:26:19, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >>>You may be right but what rating list are you talking about. >>>Movei play in a lot of tournaments of winboard program and I never saw results >>>of Mridul there. >>> >> >>Maybe, you dont know what he is talking about as always. The Mridul´s engine is >>a private engine. First, you should ask what is the status of this engine. > >There are private engines that are in tournament that movei participates. >most of the engines are not private but not all of them. > >I can give one example cerebro is playing in Loe's tournament and is private >engine. You have a big problem of understanding what I meaning for. Who are talking about Cerebro or the Leo D´s Tournaments? I said: You should ask what the status of this engine is? > >Latest movei is also not public and the public version is significantly weaker. > >The status of the engine is irrelevant to the fact that I know nothing of its >results. > Good, the point is not if your engine is private or not private is also irrelevant. Yes, the status of the Mridul´s is relevant because his goal is another kind of Tournaments and he doesnt have to demostrate in front of you anything, considering that your statements are weeak and circumstancial. >I like more tournament in the internet. >equal hardware when comparing based on rating in chess servers or in tournaments >is comparing when the programs do not have equal hardware. This is not a fact, it just another irrelevant thing to the topic. What you think about the Internet Tournament is not the core of the topic. Why do you always tourn aside the highaway instead of going to the core of the topic? Why to avoid this using other circumtancial and irrelevants issues? Is is so difficult to order your ideas so the people can understand what you are pretending? > >I think that a fair tournament should at least allow programs to use machines >with the same price and it should not be a tournament of the people who have >more money. > >I find it unfair when one program use 500 processors and another program does >not use the best hardware that it can use for the same price. > >I do not find it unfair when one program use more than one processor and another >program does not do it because parallel search is part of the work of the >programmer but money is not part of the work of the programmer so I think that >all programs should get the best machine that they can use for the same >price(otherwise the tournament is unfair). > > All these sentences are circumstancial and dont answer to my idea. Could you order your ideas without difiiculty and complexity? I find very funny this arguments. Ahh, they are just asumptions based on what? What you believe? Good, who can rely on this? > > >> >>>Note that the programmer told me that he did not mean to offend me so there is >>>no problem with him. >>> >>>There are problems with you because you always try to offend other people(not >>>only me). >> >>You are not a different exception because you always think that you have the >>reason with a prominent arrogance. > >If you talk about the fact that I believe that I may do something better than >Crafty without using hash tables for pruning then it is still different than >saying that Crafty's evaluation is primitive. > >I can agree that it may be better not to say what I believe about the future but >saying "your evaluation is primitive" is clearly worse than saying "I believe >that I can do better than you or even saying that you already have something >better". > >I did not claim that it is easy to do a better evaluation than Crafty like >vincent claimed when he claimed that the evaluation of Crafty is one day work. > >Uri Again, the topic is not other topic. All this stuff is circumtancial and irrelevant. Could you focus on the topic?
This page took 0.01 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.