Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 15:40:48 05/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 16:40:11, Ed Schröder wrote: >On May 02, 2001 at 14:46:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 02, 2001 at 13:47:15, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>> >>>I started with a SMP version perhaps even earlier then Stefan. >>> >>>Ed >>> >> >> >>This says two things: >> >>1. You have finally moved to windows, since SMP in DOS is not possible. >>(or Linux or whatever, of course). >> >>2. You also chose to keep your effort secret for reasons that I won't try >>to determine or understand. >> >>But again, here, you pay your money and take your chances. If you keep an >>SMP version secret, then you can't realistically expect anyone to ask you to >>enter it in an important event. >> >>I don't buy the "they should have asked." They could just as easily say >>"you should have told us." >> >>Since neither program has played a public game, it is hard for me to determine >>how "serious" all this really is. It could range anywhere from "vaporware" >>to "sort of working" to "really good parallel performance". If it is the >>latter, then keeping it secret _really_ makes no sense. If it is one of >>the former, then wanting it considered makes no sense. In short, it makes no >>sense to me, period... no matter what has happened. > >A nice logic, first suggest it is not there, then suggest it is probably >vaporware. Yes, that has always been my trade mark. Now where have I heard >that before? > >Ed Read what I wrote more carefully. The conclusion was "no matter what is the truth, the way it was handled makes no sense." If you had one, it made no sense to keep it secret. If you don't have one, it makes no sense to mention it. If you have something that works, but only barely, it makes no sense to compete with it. in short, the way this was handled by yourself and Christophe makes no sense to me at all. no I don't like the match stuff either. But that has nothing to do with this issue, IMHO. IE if I had been in Enrique's position, and given the constraints that he had probably been given, I would have invited Ferret, Shredder, Fritz and Junior to the qualifier, if the qualifier was a condition that had to be done. I wouldn't have given Tiger a second thought, nor would I have asked, because Christophe has on _several_ occasions pointed out that he considered SMP to be pointless. Therefore, I can see Enrique's position in a way, even though I still don't agree with having the qualifier in the first place, nor with just selecting the two programs that ended up in it in the second place. But as far as the SMP Tiger goes, there is _no_ "third place" for me. If someone says "I am not interested" then I am not going to start playing semanting games... Did he mean "I am not interested now, but I might be later?" Did he mean I am not interested now because I have already done one?" That's just childish semantics. And saying that _then_ made no sense then in light of what is being claimed _today_... There was no intent to say you make claims that are not true. The intent was to say that whether you did or not, the actions made no sense whatever. IE it couldn't have been handled worse on your and Christophe's part. Sometimes the desire for secrecy bites you. Here is an example... I don't see how Enrique can be faulted for _that_ part of the thing...
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.