Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:21:47 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 16, 2000 at 17:01:45, Chessfun wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 15:45:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 16, 2000 at 14:34:09, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On October 16, 2000 at 14:29:25, Enrique Irazoqui 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. >>>> >>>>Maybe there is no need to be so literal. I talk the same way: zillions, tons, >>>>etc. I want to have dinner and I just told my son that he had me waiting for >>>>hours, when in fact his damn shower took only a few minutes. I have no trouble >>>>understanding what Bob means with his zillions and hundreds. >>>> >>>>Anyway, 20*30*x is plenty big. >>>> >>>>Enrique >>> >>> >>>I have trouble understanding, but it seems zillions is more than hundreds, >>>by how many we will never know. >>> >>>When making a statement on a programs performance it would be nice to see >>>some accuracy in the statements being made. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >>I would add that when posting, a lack of "attitude" would be a welcome >>addition. Enrique knew what I meant. _you_ knew what I meant. You simply >>wanted to make it another issue for some reason... > >Not exactly true. As I thought I knew what you meant when you originally >used the term hundreds. As far as "attitude" if I said anything that has >been offensive then I apologize as no offense is meant. > >>Even when I explain a frequently used term, you want to make it an issue >>_again_... > >To me a zillion isn't a frequently used term. I am making no issue I just >was curious as to what a zillion meant but since Enrique posted "an >indeterminately large number" that will surffice. > >Sarah. zillion is common. as is gadzillion, scads, tons, and lots of other words, each of which means "a lot" when used in a "slang" way... In the case of the cstal games, several here tuned in each nite to watch them. Most were played by "lonnie" but maybe 100 or so by cstal accounts (all games were not saved as at times, cstal's rating was too low to save the games.) Most got tired of watching them, as the dreaded "wild attacks" simply never happened... or if they did, in maybe one of 20 games...
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.