Author: martin fierz
Date: 00:23:32 11/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2003 at 20:08:23, Russell Reagan wrote: >No one is misunderstanding what you are writing. Maybe you aren't saying what >you are meaning to say, but what you're saying isn't correct. You say that the >US doesn't have any programs that could contend for the WCCC title, which is >clearly false as Bob has shown. > >For some reason you want to seperate software and hardware, and that isn't the >reality of the WCCC, which is what we are discussing here. hey russell, at least you take the time to make yourself clear. i realize i should have done more of that too :-( so, let me update my statement to 1.1: "if there were a computer chess championship where all the best programs showed up, and the participants were running on similar hardware (i.e. nobody having more than twice the computing power of anybody else), then no US-american program would have a good chance of winning the event" obviously that is not what the WCCC rules are like, and i am fully aware of that. but it's the only thing i'm interested in. to make things more clear: we have the hardware, the software and the combination of both. for me the following are synonyms: hardware: machine, computer software: program hardware+software combination: participant, entrant you know i am not a native english speaker - so correct me if my understanding of english is limited! i was talking about *programs* and, according to my synonym list, i was talking about the software alone. and to make matters clear, i have now added v 1.1 of my statement. i guess we all should get back to work on our programs instead of keeping this senseless discussion alive :-) cheers martin
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.