Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:50:32 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 14:01:15, Chessfun wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 13:24:23, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 16, 2000 at 13:10:28, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2000 at 12:55:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On October 16, 2000 at 11:30:44, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 16, 2000 at 10:49:39, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Show me the solid evidence that shows it works. I played a zillion games vs >>>>>>CSTal (on ICC) using equal hardware. (P6/200 single cpu at the time). It >>>>>>didn't work then. 2 of every 3 games ended in an endgame. and 9 of every 10 >>>>>>of those ended in a loss for the speculative program. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Now this zillion I have to see. >>>>> >>>>>Sarah. >>>> >>>> >>>>I believe most understand the concept that "zillion" -> "large number". And >>>>I mean _large_ number. Large -> 20 per day for several months. Many operated >>>>directly by Chris. >>> >>> >>>Ok now I get it. >>>"Zillion" = Large Number = 20 per day for several? months. >>>Hundreds = 87 or Two Hundred. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >>I do not remmeber that Bob claimed that hundreds=87. > > >No he claimed Hundreds, then produced 87 with about 1/2 of those >being Guests. Later he said he could produce 200, but didn't. >Therefore Hundreds = 87 = Two hundred. > > >>My understanding of the english language say that hundreds can be also two >>hundreds and the number of hundreds is not clear when it is at least 2. > >My understanding is a number between 100 and 999. The original point >I was making was that he didn't mean two hundred. Naturally this was >a mistake as only he could determine what he meant in the original >statement of hundreds. But IMO it's like a "zillion" no accurate figure >just a number thrown up in the air. > >Sarah. Let's get the facts right if you are going to re-hash this _again_. I said _hundreds_. I meant _hundreds_. I also explained that I don't keep games played _forever_. I can't tell from a handle who is running what. I can only tell by (a) seeing kibitzes (when the operators have not disabled this) or (b) by asking them, if I see the game "live". I gave 87 games from the logs I had handy. That was all the quick data I had at hand. I pointed out that I had seen games played dating back a good while prior to my log information. The 87 games were over a very few days. Against the handle "crafty". I also mentioned watching other crafty clones play games. I didn't have logs of those and could not cite a precise number of games. It was clearly a non-zero number... Now can we move on without the selective memory stuff? This is all old news and should be relegated to the wastebin.
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.