Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 05:46:17 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 03, 2004 at 19:33:57, Robin Smith wrote: >On January 03, 2004 at 12:06:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: > ><big snip> >>If you mean "accept" = "resigned to the fact that the wrong program won, but >>it is most likely not going to be changed" then I'd agree. To me, "accept" >>implies some sort of approval. I have none for that decision. > >I mean "accept" like if your daughter were to get married to someone she liked, >but you yourself did not. Or "accept" like if an umpire makes a bad call that >results in a different team winning the world series/super bowl or whatever. I >each case you might not like it, but what are you going to do? Learn to live >with it. If - the two examples weren't totally different to the case we are debating. If a referee or TD makes a false decision against the rules, that is not something factual in a sport like computerchess. Here the TD, the board, all participants could have repaired the mess. Throwing a game however seems to be a tolerable behaviour in computerchess. NOOOOT, as Prof Hyatt explained in extenso. But you are invited to believe in super-magic and the irrelevance of bugs. And fairness in reverso. If that wouldn't be accompanied by very insultive messages for academics. As if academics usually ignored reality. Certainly not. Is it so difficult to make the differentiation between a SHREDDER who was a really strong program in Graz and the winner in a fair competition? The two are not necessarily the same. End of the debate. If the ICGA declares this evening that from now on the a-pawns are to be taken away from the board, would this be the reality you could _accept_? No?, uhm, but if your daughter....... Rolf
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.