Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 19:02:10 12/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 15, 2000 at 21:36:45, Michael Cummings wrote: >There is no accusation, there is an assumption that maybe something is wrong, >but then again you can say this for anything. So everyone can say what they want to as long as there's an assumption that maybe something could possibly be wrong. No, that's not how it works. >Its not just Rebel that has has problems with the SSDF, I can recall in the back >of my mind, programs like Shredder also did. That is beside the point. >I will also state, like I have many times in the past that the list means little >to me unless all top programs are tested. But then again it has been explained >to me why this cannot be and I have accpeted that. I don't care about the list either, but that is also beside the point. >But what is the problem with what he said. The only thing that could come close >to something being negative is the following > > >"I may not have the proof of any wrong doing, or unfair testing, but >I do think that their list could & should be more accurate than it is >and I'll leave it at that." > >This is not slander, liable for nothing. You're quoting the wrong piece of the message. The important bit was: "Now I wonder does Mr. Schroder Know the first rule in dealing w/ the devil ??". That is equivalent to slander. Consistant with what Eriq casually mentioned in another thread without proof: "Maybe the tester are just cheating the rebel team again. I mean how often have weird result pop up in the past with the ssdf that no one but them can reproduce !!!" Making accusations and admitting that there's no proof isn't acceptable argumentation. The purpose was quite obvious, so your estimation isn't correct. Mogens.
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.