Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:17:02 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 13:54:21, Omid David Tabibi wrote: >On December 15, 2003 at 09:09:14, Matthew Hull 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) >>> >>>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 >>> >>>. >>> >> >>You are really wandering off into the weeds, IMO. You have not been listining. >> >>Suppose Bob had gone, against all his reservations about taking time off, going >>to the considerable trouble of lining up a 32-way processor, and doing very well >>indeed in the tournament, only to fall into the position of the Fritz team, with >>the title given to someone else because the TD was a gormless incompetent. It >>would suck, yes? All that sacrifice of one's better judgement only to be >>scuppered by a nitwit TD. > >We have already discussed all these points, and I don't think anyone is >interested to continue the discussion. However, Bob finds it hard to understand >some basic logic statements, and is dragging the discussion on and on instead of >referring to a logics book and giving us all a rest. Currently, Bob and I are >not discussing anything related to WCCC, but pure logics. Bob says that (~A and >B) contradicts (A -> B), which is absolutely wrong. As soon as he gets that >point, the discussion is hopefully over. You simply misunderstand him. I see no point when he says it. 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.