Author: Ralph E. Carter
Date: 04:01:15 12/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 24, 1998 at 01:15:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 1998 at 18:07:40, Ralph E. Carter wrote: > >>On December 23, 1998 at 10:17:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 23, 1998 at 01:31:12, Ralph E. Carter wrote: >>> >>>>On December 22, 1998 at 23:02:59, Steve Lopez wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 22, 1998 at 20:09:45, Richard Heldmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Which PC program recommends ...h5? Please post the answer. I'd like to see >>>>>>someone disprove Kasparov. That should be simple enough, agreed? >>>>> >>>>>OK, Richard, glad to oblige. Junior5 (running as an analysis engine in >>>>>ChessBase7 with 8 MB hash tables) finds 11...h5 as its preferred move in 7:50 on >>>>>my Pentium II. >>>>> >>>>>The silence has been broken by the sound of Garry chomping crow (especially >>>>>since he has stated a preference for Junior5, so I'm sure he can check it for >>>>>himself). >>>> >>>>I am happy to hear about this! >>>>I am sure you are pleased too. >>>> >>>>But the other side in this argument does not eat crow. >>>>There will not be an end, or an admission. >>>>They will find more positions to question. >>>> >>>>It is MOST ironic, and especially satisfying to ME, that JUNIOR is on THIS side >>>>of the argument!!! >>> >>>It might be embarassing (in a way) to Junior's programmer however, since he is >>>a Kasparov "supporter". However, as you can see, Kasparov's credibility has to >>>be near zero with most everyone now... every time he makes a claim, or a >>>blanket statement (no program can find this move...) he ends up looking like an >>>idiot yet again... >> >>((That's what I meant by MOST ironic! My posts are often ridiculous, but Junior >>5 speaks with an authority that is unlikely to be challenged in this case!)) > > >You obviously don't know Kasparov very well... :) > (((You disappoint me Dr. Hyatt. When I said "there will not be an admission", and "THEY will find other moves to question", I had someone ELSE in mind. Once upon a time, there was a long, long thread in CCC. It was presumably a search for truth, since it was conducted by two famous programmers in a public forum. The following was posted, I paraphrase: "Under a multithreading operating system, with more than one process competing for I/O, often the sequence of events suggested by the ordering of the output is misleading. In this case, it cannot be used to conclude that one process ended before another." I was hoping to hear the conclusion of this thread, it had been so long. The reply was: "Yes, you are right. My argument was based on a false assumption. Thank you." No? There was no reply? Maybe the thread was NOT a search for truth. My naivete humiliates me again.))) >facts mean little when he is talking about deep blue, it seems...
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.