Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 22:17:53 12/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 14, 2003 at 23:16:48, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 14, 2003 at 19:40:35, Omid David Tabibi wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>
>OK. Back to my original point. "your statement is stupid."
>
>I _certainly_ would have had a chance to win. And not that bad a chance,
>based on results I have been seeing with this quad opteron.
>
>So believe what you want. But don't try to read my mind. You simply
>aren't up to the task...
>
>I've explained why I didn't go. The explanation _still_ stands.
>
>And I don't see why you started the ramble about mis-interpreting your
>statement, when I clearly did not, and you could see that it was not
>mis-interpreted either...
Quote from you:
"I played in the 1989 WCCC event knowing I had practically no chance of beating
deep thought with 16 processors. But I _was_ there."
You gave this as an example of:
(no winning chances) AND (participation) (1)
in order contradict what I said, which was
(winning chances) -> (participation) (2)
I fail to see how (1) contradicts (2).
In other words, you tried to contradict
A -> B
by giving the example
~A and B
.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>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.