Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 11:35:52 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 13:51:19, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 15, 2003 at 10:12:13, Thomas Mayer wrote: > >>Hi Omid, >> >>I don't really get your point in this discussion. I think you can not claim Bob >>that he would only participate when he thinks that he can win - > >Let's review again what I said: > >"If you think you have a chance to win, you will participate". > >"chance to win" -> "participation". > >This statement doesn't say *anything* at all about the state of "no chance to >win". For some reason Bob thinks that > >"chance to win" -> "participation" > >is equivalent to > >"no chance to win" -> "no participation" > >which is terribly wrong. Yes that looks wrong, but your first statement is equivalent to: "reason for no participation" -> "no chance to win" which I believe is incorrect since Crafty, Ruffian and others would have had chances had they decided to compete. I've added 'reason for' just to make it clear. Trivially, in the strict sense there is no way you can win if you don't participate, so I assume that's not what you meant. >I suggest than in summer 2004 you conduct a test between the latest versions of >Sjeng and another commercial engine which doesn't show up to tournaments. I bet >Sjeng will be *far* stronger, because by participating in tournaments it always >becomes stronger, just like human players. I thought so too, until Ruffian showed up out of nowhere :) -S.
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.