[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;368978]It's so nice to see and read common sense!

Indeed. One would expect a high probability for the 1st 4 seeds in each region to win their 1st game and a better than 50% probability to win
the next as well.[/QUOTE]
Awesome, you're Silverman approved.

Now, quick, run while he's still in a good mood.

[QUOTE=LaurV;370889]Sorry that I am waking up this topic. I searched for it in the light of [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=370767"]this new discussion[/URL], I did not get the right thing I was searching for, but reaching this topic remembers me that I had implemented the "420 classes" not long after this discussion, doing a pari script to generate the vectors. The code might be useful to somebody, so I will include here. It is about 15% faster than the "60 classes" code described in the posts above. It also eliminates the restriction that the starting q be a multiple of 420. The version with 4620 classes would be slower because of overhead (hey! pari is not mfaktc!).

Somebody can use it for understanding how mfaktc works, or for TF-in small exponents which are outside of the mfaktc range (again, there are much faster programs there outside, this is not for "production" purposes).

[ATTACH]11028[/ATTACH]
[can't insert code, is over 10k characters limit][/QUOTE]

Yet another content free post........

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;370892]Naysayers suitably ignored...

:[/QUOTE]

Ah. Not only ignorant, but WILLFULLY so.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;373965]Who has time for boring "work intensive" stuff like that when one is furiously MMORPGing, TwitTweeting and facePalling?[/QUOTE]

What is your excuse?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;374332]I doubt anyone else does either.[/QUOTE]

To put on the table, most don't fully appreciate those who have given much and are going to go away soon.

Sucks to be them, huh?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;375546]In the thread title it's used in a common vernacular form meaning "complain loudly." As is "piss" in this context. Using "bitch" to connote a female dog [note: "in heat" is not implied] is not swearing, nor is the bitch = complain usage. [Or at best it's a very mild form of swearing].[/QUOTE]

Does "quit being a fscking asshole you twat" communicate the message clearer?

[QUOTE=chalsall;375548]Does "quit being a fscking asshole you twat" communicate the message clearer?[/QUOTE]

LOL.. Did I push the envelope too far?

(If there were some other thread for posting a response to LaurV's post #175, I'd have used it.)

[QUOTE=LaurV;377242]Why? We can do our own analysis.[/QUOTE]Did you deliberately withhold it from posting so that other team members could see it?

[quote]You are [B][U]NOT[/U][/B] expected to write[/quote]I never, ever thought or said that I was "expected" to.

[I]What you seem to be doing here is trying to set up a [strike]strawman[/strike] decoy argument that you posted prematurely without a vote because you were saving me the trouble of completing the analysis, [U]instead of honestly admitting that your actual motive was uncontrollable impatience[/U].[/I]

[quote]You did it for (almost) every move, because you had the time to do it, and because you were [U]able[/U] to do it, and we respected this.[/quote]Then, why stop respecting it at this time? Why stop respecting it in the middle of analyzing move 34?

[quote]Many times we (at least speaking in my name, but I am convinced is valid for WMH too) spotted better moves (or what we believed were better) and we kept quiet[/quote]That was very foolish, and [U]directly contradicted my wishes and expressions [I]that I posted[/I][/U]. Also, see next response.

[quote][U]exactly[/U] from respect for your work.[/quote]At no time did I EVER hint, ask or demand acquiescence to the analysis I posted or to the move I thought best. At all times, the principle was: set forth your best analysis about the move candidates, so that the other team members can see it.

If you deliberately did not post a move you thought was, or even might be, better than one I proposed, then you were acting exactly contrary to my wishes. I repeatedly asked you to check my analysis, [I]and, by extension, that included posting anything you thought might be as good or better.[/I] If you ever refrained from doing that because of "respect" for my analysis, than that was DISrespect.

[U]If what you claim now[/U] ("Many times we (at least speaking in my name, but I am convinced is valid for WMH too) spotted better moves (or what we believed were better) and we kept quiet") [U]is true, then that was not [I]respect[/I] for me or my analysis. That was [B]DIS[/B]respect [/U][U][U]for me or my analysis[/U].[/U] If that claim of yours is correct, then I'm quite sad that you concealed that from me.

The worth of any analysis is the team's collective decision about its value on the board, not who conceived or posted the analysis. If your claim of concealment of what might have been better moves is true, then that directly [U]hurt[/U] our game and was in no way a sign of respect.

[quote]it should be clear for everybody[/quote][I]What should be clear for everybody is that you are trying to set up a [/I][I][I][strike]strawman[/strike] decoy[/I] excuse for your premature move-posting without a vote because, supposedly, you were saving me the trouble of completing the analysis, [U]instead of honestly admitting that your actual motive was uncontrollable impatience[/U].[/I]

Please be honest with us about your motive, instead of trying to disguise it as something else, LaurV. You obviously have great difficulty controlling your impatience, and it's not helpful that you try to masquerade that difficulty as something else that you blame on another team member.

[quote]that you played most of the game,[/quote]Those not on our team did not know how often the move we played was first proposed by someone besides me, and were completely unaware of how much influence your advocacy of moves other than the ones I first proposed had on my eventual decision, so how could they possibly be "clear" about the role I played?

Again, it seems that you're trying to set up a [strike]strawman[/strike] decoy in order to avoid admitting that you could not control your impatience.

[quote]and we are winning the game because of this fact.[/quote]If that's so because you or anyone else deliberately withheld questions of move proposals that you thought might have been better than what I posted, then I'm ashamed that you give that credit to me. We could have had more of an advantage than we actually had.

[quote]I personally didn't see a mistake in posting a move for which no alternative was viable,[/quote]Oh? How, exactly, did you decide that "no alternative was viable"? It certainly wasn't because of any vote. It certainly wasn't because I ever said so. It certainly wasn't because you ever posted any analysis proving that no alternative was viable.

Look at the board position prior to 34 Bh3+.

Tell us how, exactly, you decided (without consulting the rest of your team) that 34 Nxe7 and 34 Kf2 and 34 Kh1 were "not viable".

If you actually had done analysis that showed that 34 Nxe7 and 34 Kf2 and 34 Kh1 were not "viable", why did you withhold that analysis from the rest of your team?

Why was it so important to skip the voting procedure on this move?

[quote]in spite of the fact that you didn't finish your interminable analysis.[/quote]We still had four days.

[quote]Believe it or not, I went through your posts [U]every time[/U] for every move. Sometimes I learned interesting things from those posts.[/quote]Then, why did you decide not to do that this time (after I had finished my analysis)? How did you know you wouldn't have learned anything ([I]such as that there were other "viable" moves[/I])?

- - -

The arguments you set forth do not hold water. You're trying to use a rhetorical [strike]strawman[/strike] decoy to avoid being honest about your inability to control your impatience.

Man, let it go. You are out of the team, by your own option. Thanks for your contribution.

I protest the removal of my last post in this thread, wherein I demonstrated that [I]LaurV is not being honest about his motive[/I]. [U] At the time I posted it, there was not yet any declaration that the discussion was closed![/U]

[B]This post is intended to take the place of my post which was deleted. I will not make any more posts discussing this matter (unless this post is deleted without restoration of my preceding post). I request that [I]either[/I]

a) my previous post, which was validly posted before discussion was closed, be restored, or

b) this post be allowed to remain in its place as my final post in this discussion.[/B]

(It now occurs to me that you might have moved my last post into the Pirate Game 2 discussion forum. That's an acceptable alternative to me, as would moving this post to there, also.

BTW, why has no moderator had the courtesy yet to inform me of this deletion/move or its reason?)

LaurV's excuses have each been shown to be false, readily refuted by the record of past discussion by Pirates on game 2 once that is accessible by all after the game is finished.

The truth is that LaurV gets (this wasn't the first time in this game) impulses that he can't control -- impulses to post a move before the team has voted and before there is real agreement, without authorization from the rest of the team. [I]He's frequently written that he's relieved to be rid of the burden of posting the move right after he posts it.[/I]

LaurV's uncontrollable impulses will continue to be a detriment to any team he's on as captain, until/unless he admits to himself that he cannot control his impulses to post moves before the rest of the team has agreed on them.

As for LaurV's lie about "no alternative was viable", there are at least four other viable moves --- including one which no one else on our team had yet mentioned at all.

So, not only is LaurV's "no alternative was viable" a lie, so is his "the move was the best we could do" -- since LaurV has given no sign that he's even considered the move I've analyzed that no one has yet mentioned! This move may very well have been better than Bh3+. LaurV has no way whatsoever to have known that the move, for which he did not give me the chance to show the team my analysis while there was still time to have agreed to make it instead of Bh3+, was not the best move.

I wish LaurV would be honest about his inability to control his impulses to post a move before the rest of the team has agreed on it, instead of trying to create a dishonest smoke screen. [B]That inability of LaurV's might be a factor in future decisions about which team to join -- if, that is, potential team members are made aware of it ahead of time, instead of having it sprung on them as a surprise after the game starts.[/B]

[QUOTE=LaurV;377275]Man, let it go. You are out of the team, by your own option. Thanks for your contribution.[/QUOTE]

Cheesehead...

For the "grown-ups", when you resign you have resigned.

You no longer have a voice.

Deal with it.