Author: Chessfun
Date: 20:46:41 04/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 18, 2001 at 20:26:36, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On April 18, 2001 at 18:11:28, Chessfun wrote: > >>On April 17, 2001 at 15:12:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On April 17, 2001 at 13:54:59, Chessfun wrote: >>> >>>>On April 17, 2001 at 13:40:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 17, 2001 at 10:25:33, Mogens Larsen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 17, 2001 at 09:57:40, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Supposed _I_ set up a tournament to choose the program to play? And then >>>>>>>suppose _I_ said "if you want in, send me $50,000 to enter your program."?? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Would you enter even if you _knew_ Rebel xx was the best in the world? And >>>>>>>risk that kind of money to get in knowing that one game can be lost due to a >>>>>>>bad book line or bug? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Charging an entry fee is a bit of a joke, IMHO. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It means the deeper your pockets, the better your chances... >>>>>> >>>>>>Well, at least there's a refund for those that don't make it :-). >>>>>> >>>>>>Seriously, can anyone blaim SMK for not handing over $5000 and Shredder to a >>>>>>third party for this socalled qualifier? I think not. >>>>>> >>>>>>Mogens. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Let's try a different approach. Let _me_ handle the qualification tournament. >>>>>Here are my rules: >>>> >>>>Making posts as above "is a bit of a joke, IMHO" since you clearly hadn't >>>>even bothered reading the current rules well enough to know the $5,000.00 >>>>was refunded to losing programs. >>> >>>What makes you conclude that? I can read perfectly well. But I would not >>>send $5,000.00 in no matter what, because I try to spend my money more wisely >>>than that. >> >> >>You wrote "risk that kind of money" as in if the program lost the money >>was forfeit. That wasn't the case as already posted by Bertil. >>No you change that to sending the money in.. > >Do you get it back under _any_ circumstance? No. So you pay it and take >a chance on getting it back. That is the classic definition of "risk" in >my Webster's... Since there is a circumstance where I won't get it back. You get it back under the circumstance _you_ quoted losing. The Webster's reference is simple semantics. >>>>>Any publicly released chess program can enter. Including patches. So Rebel >>>>>could enter 2 programs since Ed has (I think) released the original rebel plus >>>>>a patch this year. I get to enter all 19 released versions of Crafty. If those >>>>>are the only two entries, care to bet who is going to win? Statistically one >>>>>of my 19 versions will win even if all are worse than either of Ed's two >>>>>versions. >>>>> >>>>>This is what has happened if you include Deep Shredder, Deep Fritz, and Deep >>>>>Junior. A trivia question: Which chess distributor has the best chance of >>>>>winning that event? :) >>>>> >>>>>It is called "stacking the deck in your favor." >>>> >>>>Hogwash. Tell that to Amir Ban. In your case above tell me that Amir >>>>wouldn't want to win as much as Stefan and that his odds of doing so >>>>are greater due to your "stacking the deck in your favor." theory. >>> >>>No. But the "distributor" certainly has a big interest in having one of >>>"Its" engines as the competitor. So it is not "hogwash" at all. It is >>>plain marketing, front-to-back... >> >> >>The distributor does yes. But how does the distributor stck the deck >>when the choices are made by two independant people? > >By having _two_ of his programs in the contest to _one_ from the opponents... But that didn't answer the question. Again...how does the distributor stack the deck when the choices are made by two independant people? Sarah.
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.