Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 07:10:17 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2004 at 08:46:17, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 Or at least a new hobby!
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.