Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:41:37 10/24/97
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 1997 at 12:21:53, Chris Whittington wrote: > >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. > True, *absolutely*. You continually say "I initiated the arms race". It is hard to be the 10th person that decides to get a faster machine, but still be the one that "initiated" the process. Logic simply doesn't follow, in any shape or form. >> >>> >>>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. Again, exaggeration and hyperbole rule. Bruce reported his 533 mhz alpha was 1.75 times faster than the P6/200, which is about 1.5X faster than the AMD K6/233. You've already said 1.3X was ok. I find it rather difficult to swallow that 1.5 is *way* beyond the rest of us (your exact words). The 766 is an unknown performer at present. We'll see if it is anywhere near 50% faster than the /500 or not.. but you don't like the /500 either (see above comment). > >> 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* others had. *just* like you did in fact... > >>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 ? what exaggeration? post again after the players meeting. Count the number of people using the AMD processors and the number of people that aren't. This was published as at least 1/3 of the people using non-AMD. You've since jumped on the bandwagon. I know of another. In fact, I believe there are going to be *six* alphas there, out of 32 players. Not counting the PII/300's of which there are at least 6 I know of and probably others I don't know about... > >> I took evasive action myself to equalize. > >767 is not equalising. Chris, please stop the bullshit. Two other programs already have 766 machines. So my getting one is equalizing. I may be leaving you behind, but I'm catching up to them. Again, you guys let this tournament reach this state when it was in the commercial programmer's interest to allow the fastest thing around. now it's a problem. I still say "tough". Get a concensus to change the rules. But for the present everyone has to live by 'em... I begin to understand why you are anti-ICCA now... when they enforce a rule that is unfavorable ot you, you react. When they enforce one that is good for you, nothing. The rules are clear. No one is breaking them. No one broke them last year. Nor the year before that. Nor for 15 years now... > >> 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. initiate. v. 1. to start something, to initiate a dialog; etc. I did *not* start this. > >> >>> >>>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 ? at least not the whiney ones that make the rules favor them when it is convenient, then raise hell when the rules get turned around in their disfavor... > >>allowed the arms race for 14 prior years. No bitching and moaning. > >How do you know, were you listening ? Somehow I doubt it. I was. I even initiated a discussion 2 years ago (before I ever played) about the appropriateness of the alpha and Sparc machines. I was reminded at the time that it had been common for years, and that Lang and Fidelity and others had *always* used something faster than that which could be bought. In fact they used something faster than they could even sell. > >>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 >:( As I have said, only a dozen times. Most likely we are running on the 500mhz alpha. By Bruce's numbers that is 1.75X the P6/200. You are running on a PII /300, which is, by my tests on non-chess things, about 1.5X the P6/200. We are *close*. But the /500 is still unacceptable of course. I see PII/300 crafty's on ICC running at 150K nodes per sec, which is exactly the speed that "data" (another crafty clone on a 533mhz alpha) was running. *if* we get a usable 766, it is "potentially" 50% faster. Which is not even a factor of 2 over your PII. talk about hard-head tactics... try a calculator first... > >> >> >>> >>>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 ? > diversion after diversion. You said it is unethical, then you did it. What does that make you? >> >>You are a hypocrite. > >And you are bombastic and never admit fault. > when I'm wrong I do. But here I am not... >> >>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 but *your* brand hit the mark. Check your butt next time you visit the men's room. It has a big "H" now...
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.