Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:15:56 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".
>
No, that is _not_ what you said. What you said is _exactly_ this:
Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they
would have shown up.
Now please stop trying to change what you said, and live with your actual
words.
You clearly said "if I thought I had any chance to win, I would have
shown up."
I say again, that is _bullshit_. It has been bullshit since you first
said it, it is bullshit now, it will continue to be bullshit for as long
as you care to continue with it.
I have _clearly_ given my reasons for not attending. I have given the _same_
reasons many times in the past. I really don't care whether you like my
reasons or not, as you don't have to live with them. _I_ do.
But _stop_ trying to change your words.
>"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"
Read your statement above. You are not going to be able to weasel out of
them. You may as well say "I spoke incorrectly, let's move on." Don't
try to rewrite what you wrote.
>
>is equivalent to
>
>"no chance to win" -> "no participation"
>
>which is terribly wrong.
look at what you wrote. I don't care what you _meant_ to write. I care
about what you _wrote_.
Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they
would have shown up.
Clearly implies "they didn't show up because they didn't think they could
win."
>
>Most participants in Graz came knowing that they didn't have any reasonable
>chances to win. Even I knew perfectly well that running on the slowest hardware
>there, my winning chances are very slim.
>
>Well, none of these contradict my claim.
Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they
would have shown up.
Even contradicts _your_ participation... Much less my lack of participation.
The statement simply has no relevance to _anything_ that happened or didn't
happen.
>
>
>
>> several times he
>>has shown up at WCCCs with very minimal chances...
>
>Again, this doesn't contradict what I said.
Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they
would have shown up.
I've already said that I _clearly_ would have had chances to win. At least
as good as yours. So why didn't I show up, based on your statement? Your
implication is _clearly_ wrong. P->Q can be expressed as !P | Q, as an
alternative form. P is true in my case, because I certainly thought that
I had reasonable chances. Therefore the expression is true. Yet I did
not "come". So guess what is wrong? The entire expression.
>
>
>
>>Besides, I definitely believe that he has some chances with some big hardware.
>>
>>Bob shows us his reasons why he did not participate and why he does not want to
>>participate in the upcoming WCCC at Israel. I do not agree with his reasons, but
>>anyway I respect them somehow.
>>
>>I think only for the professionals exists the problem to have some chances to
>>win or not -> to end like e.g. Deep Sjeng did (And I know it can do definitely
>>better) is not very good for the sales. For us amateurs this is different, I
>>believe. The olympic idea that participating is everything is still very high in
>>my opinion - at least it was the reason for me to participate.
>
>Bad luck is always there. In Graz, Falcon and Sjeng competed on who gets the
>worst luck! I was extremely unhappy with Falcon's results, as I'm sure GCP is
>with Sjeng's result, but as result both GCP and I will work harder on our
>programs to improve them.
>
>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.
>
>
>>Already before
>>the start it was clear to me that my combination of book, engine and hardware
>>has very low chances to win there (There is ALWAYS a chance, but say it was
>>1:1.000.000 - which is better then in a lottery... :) - I was quite aware about
>>the fact that I would fight for not being last. Anyway, how often would I get
>>the chance to participate at a world championship ? For me that was a dream
>>since 1986 (reading everything about WCCC 1986 - winner: Cray Blitz) - and I
>>think that when you have the chance to get a dream reality you should take that
>>chance...
>
>I completely agree with you, and again, I don't see how it contradicts what I
>said.
>
>
>
>>
>>Greets, Thomas
>>
>>P.S.: I will definitely try to get to Israel next year, but for now this is
>>unsure because of business issues and still because of my girlfriend which has
>>some problems with the security at the tournament site... Anyway I will try to
>>convince her.
>
>Look forward to seeing you here! As far as security goes, on May there will be a
>large number of Europeans in the Tel-Aviv area, coming for the final-four of
>EuroLeague, finals of European Basketball Association.
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.