Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: a question to Tord about detecting threats in null move

Author: Uri Blass

Date: 14:02:11 10/04/03

Go up one level in this thread


On October 04, 2003 at 16:48:26, Arturo Ochoa wrote:

>On October 04, 2003 at 16:15:57, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>On October 04, 2003 at 15:26:19, Arturo Ochoa wrote:
>>
>>>>You may be right but what rating list are you talking about.
>>>>Movei play in a lot of tournaments of winboard program and I never saw results
>>>>of Mridul there.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe, you  dont know what he is talking about as always. The Mridulīs engine is
>>>a private engine. First, you should ask what is the status of this engine.
>>
>>There are private engines that are in tournament that movei participates.
>>most of the engines are not private but not all of them.
>>
>>I can give one example cerebro is playing in Loe's tournament and is private
>>engine.
>
>You have a big problem of understanding what I meaning for. Who are talking
>about Cerebro or the Leo Dīs Tournaments?
>
>I said: You should ask what the status of this engine is?

I responded to Vincent

"In case you missed it, Messchess is way higher rated than movei."

I asked about rating list because I do not know about rating for Messchess.

>
>>
>>Latest movei is also not public and the public version is significantly weaker.
>>
>>The status of the engine is irrelevant to the fact that I know nothing of its
>>results.
>>
>
>Good, the point is not if your engine is private or not private is also
>irrelevant. Yes, the status of the Mridulīs is relevant because his goal is
>another kind of Tournaments and he doesnt have to demostrate in front of you
>anything, considering that your statements are weeak and circumstancial.

I said nothing about the level of Mridul so I do not see how can
it prove something about my statements.

Uri
>
>>I like more tournament in the internet.
>>equal hardware when comparing based on rating in chess servers or in tournaments
>>is comparing when the programs do not have equal hardware.
>
>This is not a fact, it just another irrelevant thing to the topic. What you
>think about the Internet Tournament is not the core of the topic. Why do you
>always tourn aside the highaway instead of going to the core of the topic? Why
>to avoid this using other circumtancial and irrelevants issues? Is is so
>difficult to order your ideas so the people can understand what you are
>pretending?
>
>
>
>>
>>I think that a fair tournament should at least allow programs to use machines
>>with the same price and it should not be a tournament of the people who have
>>more money.
>>
>>I find it unfair when one program use 500 processors and another program does
>>not use the best hardware that it can use for the same price.
>>
>>I do not find it unfair when one program use more than one processor and another
>>program does not do it  because parallel search is part of the work of the
>>programmer but money is not part of the work of the programmer so I think that
>>all programs should get the best machine that they can use for the same
>>price(otherwise the tournament is unfair).
>>
>>
>
>All these sentences are circumstancial and dont answer to my idea. Could you
>order your ideas without difiiculty and complexity?

In one sentence:
I think that in a fair tournament programs should use the same hardware or the
best hardware that they can use under some price.
>
>I find very funny this arguments. Ahh, they are just asumptions based on what?
>What you believe? Good, who can rely on this?

I do not understand what you mean.

>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Note that the programmer told me that he did not mean to offend me so there is
>>>>no problem with him.
>>>>
>>>>There are problems with you because you always try to offend other people(not
>>>>only me).
>>>
>>>You are not a different exception because you always think that you have the
>>>reason with a prominent arrogance.
>>
>>If you talk about the fact that I believe that I may do something better than
>>Crafty without using hash tables for pruning then it is still different than
>>saying that Crafty's evaluation is primitive.
>>
>>I can agree that it may be better not to say what I believe about the future but
>>saying "your evaluation is primitive" is clearly worse than saying "I believe
>>that I can do better than you or even saying that you already have something
>>better".
>>
>>I did not claim that it is easy to do a better evaluation than Crafty like
>>vincent claimed when he claimed that the evaluation of Crafty is one day work.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Again, the topic is not other topic. All this stuff is circumtancial and
>irrelevant. Could you focus on the topic?

You said:
"you always think that you have the reason with a prominent arrogance."

I admit that I did not understand what do you mean and it seems that I guessed
wrong.

Uri



This page took 0.14 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.