Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:52:11 10/24/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 1997 at 03:49:27, Chris Whittington wrote:
>>
>Q.E. NON. D.
>
>Again I ask that you refer yourself to yourself for moderation.
again I respond that the only person needing moderation is you. *I*
am not the one posting outright false statements, nor am *I* saying
one thing while doing exactly the opposite.
>
>I'll make my position very clear, just so that you can't keep on
>misrepresengting it.
>
>I objected to your using PAST events and their hardware patterns (to
>which you were in objection) as the excuse to bring outperforming
>hardware to THIS event.
You can object all you want. It wasn't an issue back then, it isn't
going
to be an issue (for me) now. You don't like it, don't participate.
*or*
follow my suggestion to pursue alternative ways to run this so that
there
is a way to play in a uniform platform event.
>
>I objected to your initiation of the arms race.
Then stop objecting. You gain nothing by objecting to a *false*
premise. Look at the original list of programs attending. See Crafty
down near the bottom? See the machine listed there? AMD K6/233. DO
you
see that? I do. Do you see the PII/300's there? Do you see the
multiple
alpha's there? I do. So, at the point in time when the event field was
announced I was on a K6/233. That I can prove. After I saw the list,
it became apparent that 1/3 (at least) of the field would have faster
machines. It was probably that at least 1/2 of the field would be on
faster machines. I took evasive action myself to equalize. I looked at
the fastest machines coming and the PII/300, and found I couldn't find
a freebie PII machine, because they have just started shipping over
here.
But I did find an alpha, with the possibility of an alpha equal to two
other programs attending. *after* Dark thought was listed on an alpha.
*after* fritz was listed on a PII. etc. *after* rather than *before*.
So I didn't "initiate" anything, and wish you'd stop saying so.
>
>Get it now ? Just because it happened in the past is no excuse for
>starting it off again. And that's what you were doing. Your
>argumentation was endlessly full of references to the past, and
>Mephisto, and commercials and and and; always to past events. Always
>justifying your action at this event.
this is my second WMCCC. you and your cohort commercial programmers
allowed the arms race for 14 prior years. No bitching and moaning.
No nothing. Even two years ago saw alphas and sparcs. The programs
weren't competitive, you say? So it was OK? Now the programs on the
alphas are very competitive. I suppose that is all that has changed...
>
>This is qualitatively different to actions taken WITHIN an arms race
>situation. Especially after strong attempts were made to persuade the
>offending parties to de-escalate.
moralistic bullshit. You obtained a PII/300 *after* you found out about
the fast machines that were being brought. *I* obtained a fast alpha
*after* I discovered how many fast machines were being brought. But you
are on the high moral ground and I am not? Superb logic there...
>
>Your hypocrite accusation is therefore unfounded, rude and insulting.
>Moderate yourself.
>
>Chris
"hypocrite. n. A person that says one thing, but whos actions are
diametrically opposed to that."
You said it is unethical to obtain faster hardware.
You obtained faster hardware.
You are a hypocrite.
Again, Q.E.D.
Please stop the bullshit about "I initiated..." *I* didn't initiate
anything. I've never said a thing about this being ethical or
unethical,
because it is a matter of "rules" and the rules allowed this in years
past,
and they still allow it now. One thing I *have not* done is to label
this
as unethical, then dive right in. In essence, you've pretty well
branded
yourself here. I agree with that brand...
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.