Author: Omid David Tabibi
Date: 13:04:07 12/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2003 at 15:17:02, Uri Blass wrote: >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. Quoting from an episode of Yes Prime Minister I just saw on channel 23: [video file, need Real Player] http://www.yes-minister.com/video/vypm22q1.ram Bernard Woolley [prime minister's private secretary]: "Well, thinking back on what I said, and what they said, and what I said you said, and what they may say I said you said, or what they may have thought I said I thought you thought, well, they may say I said I thought you said you thought..." :) > >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.