Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 09:21:53 10/24/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 1997 at 08:52:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: This is my last word on the subject. Obfuscate all you want. >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. Untrue. > >> >>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. Tangential. Try keeping to the point. >*or* >follow my suggestion to pursue alternative ways to run this so that >there >is a way to play in a uniform platform event. > Or you follow my suggestion and do the same thing. > >> >>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. I see 767 alpha and Crafty appearing on the horizon. You've said that's what you'll use if you can. I say that is way over the top of anything else and therefore an arms race initiation. Not to mention that alphas at 500 are way beyond the rest of us. > So, at the point in time when the event field was >announced I was on a K6/233. That I can prove. Big deal. Then you still went for the nuclear weapons. >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. Is there no end to this exaggeration ? > I took evasive action myself to equalize. 767 is not equalising. > 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. > 767 is initiating an arms race. > >> >>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 You really don't like these 'commercials' do you ? >allowed the arms race for 14 prior years. No bitching and moaning. How do you know, were you listening ? Somehow I doubt it. >No nothing. Even two years ago saw alphas and sparcs. The programs >weren't competitive, you say? Hiarcs was competitive on a Sparc. Listen, read, I say different to what you suggest. >So it was OK? Brick wall, head, bang :( > Now the programs on the >alphas are very competitive. I suppose that is all that has changed... > Bang, bang, bang, head, ouch :( > >> >>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. Rude again. > 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... No I didn't even catch up. You overtook the field. Head wall brick, ouch :( > > >> >>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. Using PAST events as justification, and then initiating, yes. > >You obtained faster hardware. Not as fast as yours, and not as fast as the fastest. that's you, isn't it ? > >You are a hypocrite. And you are bombastic and never admit fault. > >Again, Q.E.D. Pfah. > >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. Catching up in an already started arms race is one thing, trying to keep up without even catching the leaders is another thing, trying to de-escalate is another; but bringing kit as fast or faster than the fastest there already is is something else. Respond how you like. I'm now involving myself in the tournament itself. > In essence, you've pretty well >branded >yourself here. I agree with that brand... Ride em cowboy ! Sorry your hot iron didn't quite make it ... Chris
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.