Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 10:38:26 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 09:59:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? Oh my, how did you pass your logics exam? Enough is enough. I refuse to continue this discussion as long as you refuse to understand basic logic. > >> >>. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>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.