Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 16:04:42 05/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 02, 2001 at 18:40:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Okay, now that you finally refrain from futher disparaging remarks on my software you are ready to read: http://site2936.dellhost.com/forums/1/message.shtml?167479 and give your comments on that as I don't expect Enrique will do it. Ed
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.