Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Technical question regarding interface for CCT

Author: Omid David Tabibi

Date: 16:40:35 12/14/03

Go up one level in this thread


On December 14, 2003 at 19:25:56, Robert Hyatt wrote:

>On December 14, 2003 at 17:42:21, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>On December 14, 2003 at 17:36:36, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On December 14, 2003 at 17:05:18, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>
>>>>On December 14, 2003 at 16:52:54, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On December 14, 2003 at 07:17:13, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On December 14, 2003 at 00:02:46, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 19:15:00, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 19:02:23, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 18:29:42, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 18:12:17, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On December 13, 2003 at 05:31:25, Amir Ban wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, if without Chessbase engines you'll have a better event and make progress,
>>>>>>>>>>>>I won't stand in your way.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Your statement sounds like the people who tried to hold on to DOS too long when
>>>>>>>>>>>Windows (and other multitasking operating systems) were clearly the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>"Well, if without real mode you'll have better programs and make progress, I
>>>>>>>>>>>won't stand in your way." You don't hear too many of those people these days. Is
>>>>>>>>>>>Ed Schröder the only one left? :) Clearly, multiuser and multitasking operating
>>>>>>>>>>>systems are progress over DOS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>45 participants is a heck of a lot more than 14. If there are 40 participants
>>>>>>>>>>>instead, that's still a heck of a lot more than 14, with plenty of strong
>>>>>>>>>>>competition. If we had this kind of participation along with the Chessbase
>>>>>>>>>>>engines, that would be great, but I'll take 40+ participants with no Chessbase
>>>>>>>>>>>participants over 14 including Chessbase participants.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What was the average rating in Graz? What is the average rating in CCT?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>By this logic the tournament would have been even better with only Shredder,
>>>>>>>>>Junior and Fritz.
>>>>>>>>>The others just dragged down the rating, obviously.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>OK, let me put it this way: how many top programs participated in Graz? How many
>>>>>>>>will participate in CCT?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Having a chess championship without Junior/Fritz/Shredder is like having a
>>>>>>>>football worldcup without Brazil, Italy, Germany, England... (and if like CCT
>>>>>>>>you don't have any "drug tests", then Argentina will easily win, thanks to
>>>>>>>>Maradona :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If quantity is the only important factor for you, then you can take 100 free
>>>>>>>>>>winboard engines, run a tournament on your computer, and crown the winner with
>>>>>>>>>>the world champion title.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Quantity is important, quantity means support, interest and recognition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Where was Tiger, where was Rebel, Ruffian, SmarThink, Crafty, Yace... in your
>>>>>>>>>little shootout?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they would have
>>>>>>>>shown up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That statement is so far beyond stupid...  it really doesn't deserve a
>>>>>>>response.  Drop over to ICC tonight or tomorrow night, try the quad opteron
>>>>>>>Crafty on for size in a game or two.  Then come back and make that statement.
>>>>>>>It's been hitting 9M+ nodes per second and is _not_ a pushover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Brutus has been hitting 20M+ nodes per second in Graz, so what?
>>>>>
>>>>>So if you think I have no chance of winning, hop over to ICC and show me
>>>>>how inferior I am on hardware that would be 1/4 the speed (or less) of
>>>>>what I would have shown up with had I made the WCCC.
>>>>>
>>>>>_that_ is "what".
>>>>>
>>>>>Did _you_ think that you had a good chance of winning?  Did you go?  What
>>>>>was the reason?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, I thought I had reasonable chances of winning. It turned out that I had
>>>>heavily underestimated the importance of hardware (you can't beat any strong
>>>>engine running at 7M nps, when you are at 400k nps), but that is another story.
>>>>
>>>
>>>OK, then why would _I_ have chosen to not come, because I had no chance of
>>>winning, when I could do 9M on the machine I am using today, and would probably
>>>have been able to find a machine at _least_ 4x faster???
>>>
>>>That is my point.  Your basic assumption is stupid and wrong.  I played in the
>>>1989 WCCC event knowing I had practically no chance of beating deep thought
>>>with 16 processors.  But I _was_ there.
>>
>>
>>Show me where I said "you will come to WCCC only if you think you have a chance
>>to win"? What I said was "if you think you have a chance to win you will come to
>>WCCC". You surely know enough about logics to know that
>>
>>    A -> B
>>
>>does not necessarily mean
>>
>>    B -> A
>>
>>:)
>
>Yes I do.  However, your implication was quite clear...
>
>    Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they would
>    have shown up.
>
>Turn it around:
>
>    they would have shown up had they thought they had any chance to win the
>    championship.
>
>certainly directly implies
>
>    They didn't think they had any chance to win so they didn't show up.

Correct.



>
>Word games don't cut it here.
>
>Your statement _was_ out of line.
>
>Simple semantic tricks don't get you out of that so easily.



This page took 0.01 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.