Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:47:40 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 01:17:53, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >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 > >. logically it is correct because you did not say if and only if but the thought about if and only if is suggested also by the example you gave about yourself. ">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" Uri
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.