Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 04:06:49 12/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2000 at 00:44:00, Michael Cummings wrote: [snip dancing with devils starring M. Cummings :o)] Just to set the record straight. The word used was "dealing", not "dancing", which changes the meaning quite a bit in my mind and renders your examples unusable in this context. The line could very well have been intended in a humorous way. But compared with the accusations made initially in another thread; http://www.icdchess.com/forums/1/message.shtml?145032, where the person in question implied that SSDF cheated and manipulated results, that wasn't the case. A simple question of adding two and two. Noone intends to prevent criticism against SSDF. However, there's a noticable difference from criticising the programs and hardware used with the list in hand to implying foul play without proof. I'll give three examples for you to think about: 1) I don't trust the SSDF list because they only test Chessbase programs on the newest hardware IMO, resulting in an unfair list. 2) The list is completely unreliable and means nothing to me, because the list of programs is incomplete and because of that buggy autoplayer. 3) The SSDF cheat and manipulate results and anyone offering their program for testing is dealing with the devil. Which are acceptable in a moderated forum, Mr. Cummings? If you have problems deciding that, let me know and I'll give you a hint. Regards, Mogens (SAFP)
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.