IWB wrote:You seems to keep interested in naming it as you pay attention to how I name and think of it. Give it your name which clearly distingush the two games and I am fine.
They aren't two different games, we're talking about one tournament condition, nothing less, nothing more. You're the one stating that chess played under one condition is real, normal or natural chess, while in case that such condition isn't met, we'd be talking about some other kind of chess (which you only label indirectly). If I were interested at all, in searching for synonyms to "ponder on" and "ponder off", I would've presented my candidates, but I'm not and I haven't. I simply wanted to know how you would label "ponder off", considering that you were already labeling its counterpart.
IWB wrote:In my view you make the mistake to think "Chess" is what engines do. […] Just because more games are played that way doesn't mean it is the normal way. Have you ever thought about hw many humns look and enjoy Ponder ON games and how many really look at Ponder OFF games?
I wouldn't use the capital "c", but yes, engines play "Chess". I guess you're referring to the infinite monkey theorem, and its identity corollary. It's a valid argument, but one that's not been resolved, to my knowledge. If two engines replay on their own, a previously played human game, would it be less of a chess game?
If more games played under some specific condition, don't make it the "normal" condition, what definition of "normal" are you ascribing to?
Obviously, much more people look at games, payed under the "ponder on" condition, because that's how they have been traditionally been played. There you have a more accurate synonym, BTW.
IWB wrote:If you disagree to that fine, but that will not change my perception what a propper game of chess is.
Proper vs improper? I see a pattern in the terms you choose, they all enhance your choice of tournament, while diminishing ponder off.
IWB wrote:I dont think that you refutet my argument with mentioning the TCEC.
I wasn't trying to refute your argument, but rather pointing out that a part of it ("no online game in chess, neither man or engine, is played ponder off"), isn't a valid statement.