Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:59:08 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) OK. which perfectly refutes your claim. I don't see your point here since you are simply reinforcing mine... I play when I can, not because I think I will win. > >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 Again, that is semantic nonsense. You said that we don't go because we don't think we have a chance to win. I said I did go knowing I didn't have a chance to win. Is that so hard to follow? > >. > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>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 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.