Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:28:12 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.
>
>
Had they thought they had any chance to win the championship, they would
have shown up.
That is the _only_ statement you made that I am responding to. You want to
twist, change, obfuscate, and disavow. But those _are_ (a) your _exact_
words; (b) absolutely wrong.
As I have already stated, I _did_ have a reasonable chance of winning. I did
not go. Therefore your statement is wrong, as it produces a direct
contradiction with any sort of logic you care to apply.
But stop the if P->Q Q does not imply P nonsense. That is _not_ what this
is about. It might be what _you_ wish it was about. But it is about a
statement that is so far beyond stupid, it takes sunlight 6 months to get
from stupid to your statement.
Please try again.
I'll be happy to quote the above every time you try to change the words to
something else.
>>
>>To me, this is another VERY STRONG REASON not to go Ramat Gan. Look what awaits
>>every participant in the event. The tenured seat-warming bureaucrats of the
>>ICGA. Who are they going to screw this time?
>>
>>Matt
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Word games don't cut it here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your statement _was_ out of line.
>>>>>>
>>>>%3
>>If-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.