Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:08:39 05/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2004 at 12:38:50, José Carlos wrote: >On May 06, 2004 at 12:26:24, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On May 05, 2004 at 23:04:20, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On May 05, 2004 at 21:31:44, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>> >>>>Let me make a contract real soon. You'll have it before sunday. >>>> >>>>I doubt though we'll ever see a signature of you there. >>> >>>I don't see the need to involve money. The programs aren't going to be >>>motivated to play better because money is on the line! Why not just play a set >>>of games on ICC? >>> >>>Dave >> >>Who cares for playing without interests at stake. last saturday i was kicked >>badly by a bunch of GM's (me FM diepeveen, not diep) 7 GM's and 10 IM's. >> >>players i remembered that i played: Fridman, Smeets, Popovich, Nijboer, Miesis, >>and some world top 40 russian whose name i can't speak out very well. 2655 or >>something. And a lot of others too. See www.utrechtschaak.nl for results. >> >>So i can at least say that me as a moderated player played against world top >>players and very good blitz players. >> >>First price 1000 euro, second and third 500 euro etc. >> >>If i win with DIEP i'll have a world title or a tournament victory. >> >>A program that used to end #5 in world and is bigtime improved now and which >>profits from fast pc hardware and is continuesly getting improved. >> >>This you want to see play against some program where in eval and search (not >>counting parallel search where nalimov seems to have done some effort) the last >>few years a few bytes per so many months change and which never impressed in >>world champs either, losing in fact in 2000 in the 100% same way like in >>Jakarta. >> >>No one cares if i beat crafty. >> >>I definitely do not find it worth my effort to do a public match without that i >>get compensated for my time. >> >>Look Bob never will say: "this match proofs something". >> >>No he will say: "look i beated you online at bullet level in 1997". >> >>That's the whole point. >> >>What do i proof beating crafty? >> >>Well i proof that i'm better than number 30 from the world or so. >> >>But we already knew that. > > When you say "we" do you mean "me and my program"? ;) > Just curious, no offense intended, but I can't really think of anyone else >apart from you both who "know that". > Play Crafty right now. Otherwise the world will see you as the one who hides >behind bets just to avoid losing. > > José C. > > > José C. He doesn't only "hide behind bets". He just hides, period. He's been busted on the mythical JICCA article he can't find that he claimed I wrote. He's been busted on the "your speedup formula is wrong"... He's been busted on his "you claimed your formula worked for any number of CPUs when my claims have _always_ been limited to what I have tested on, as Rolf's quote shows. In short, he's simply been busted. Pick your adjective. I'm having a tough time between "liar" and "fraud" myself... After getting busted, we see the "switch the subject to a chess match" idea repeated again and again. I'll play the fraud anytime he wants. Whether I win or lose is not _that_ big a deal to me. At least _I_ seem to be continuing to have fun doing this computer chess stuff... Vincent seems to be miserable doing this stuff. All he seems to do is disparage what others have done rather than doing anything credible himself...
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.