Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 17:01:09 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 18:23:09, Mogens Larsen wrote: >Absolutely, but there's a question of credibility to be answered. and its up to you to decide who has credits and who not. let me guess: is chessfun a credible source ?? i remember when i wrote negative about a novag machine, maybe novag forta A or forte B. i told Mr. Zens (he is in heaven! what a pity !) that i cannot stand those boring and stupid games anymore. 120 moves. 140 moves without any plan or idea. he was so upset he called Dieter Steinwender or Frederic Friedel or whoever and complained to the "boss". i am sure nobody would have come to the idea in this moment that years later when i reviewed superforte B/C people called me thorsten novag. there are always people you believe they are paid or you claim they are biased and always people that believe YOU are biased. and ? which review of eds do you think is weak and which passage. please give an example. i don't have written any review so far myself. i want to make a review that fits to you. i know this is impossible, but i will try. so please show me which passages you DON'T like and criticize, that i understand you better. thank you. >>what a nonsense. the grandmasters cannot find out about the strength. >>you have no clue. >>they evaluate something as strong that reminds them on themselves, >>but they do not see a strong program. > >That is absolute nonsense. no. i have tested this and often seen in tv, in paderborn, in den haag and sometimes my friend bern visits me and with him it is the same: he has problems to understand about the programs. its always the same: the chessplayers prject their own strength and weaknesses into the programs. if they see themselves. they say: oh - its strong. you could show them a mirror and they would say: strong player. looks good ! john nunn e.g. had problems with the king programs. because john nunns playing style comes near to the king itself. my friend bernd kohlweyer was much weaker, but since he played petrosian-alike he had no problems with the king-versions. he smashed them away. although his elo is lots weaker than JN. IM markus schäfer playes like CSTal e.g. and if he sees a petrosian-like chess program he believes it is weak ! if he sees a tal-playing chess program he believes it is strong. the humans are very very subjective. i don't understand that you don't see this. strange. why do you believe some humans are objective. i mean: how can any human beeing be objective ? they all subjects. or ? or is their a data-robot like guy ? >Maybe because tournaments is mostly a question of luck. with luck you can explain everything. you could say GOD instead of LUCK. or kismet if you are different religion. but it explains nothing. >That is irrelevant. no - it isn't. >You're getting paid by receiving a program for free. It represents monetary >value the same as getting paid in chickens would. chickens ? i don't like chickens :-)) ich bin gegen KZ-hühner Tierhaltung! i got "programs" for free since 1979. it began with Mark1 we got from karstadt to "test it". we tested it. it made a "--" every time it has to consider longer about our move. you could easily win, just by playing Qd1xe8 you can mate in 1 or something alike. it does not check legal-move stuff.
This page took 0.01 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.