Author: Michael Cummings
Date: 17:18:24 12/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2000 at 20:06:39, Bertil Eklund wrote:
>On December 16, 2000 at 19:28:42, Michael Cummings wrote:
>
>>On December 16, 2000 at 07:06:49, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Dealing with the devil and Dancing are both the same to me. Either way you are
>>playing in the lions den. So if I was going to use these things, I would use
>>them both in the same way
>>
>>eg ;
>>
>>Ed you are Dancing with the Devil going back to the SSDF
>>Ed you are dealing with the Devil doing back to the SSDF
>>
>>Or Ed, I know you have had problems with the SSDF, so either way going back is
>>bad for you, which the above two statements I feel are the same
>>
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>Well the last one is not acceptable, but again, he did not call them cheats, he
>>said there was a possibility of maybe something wrong, which he then goes on to
>>give the impression that since there is no proof I think he doubts it himself.
>
>If you can read, he used the word cheating. You don't have to defend him or
>yourself just say anything it's ok against the devil.
>
>Bertil
This is the orginal Post
-------------------------------------------------------------
I understand that the two have a history And I'm still surprised
that rebel has decided to try involving themselves with the list again.
Now I wonder does Mr. Schroder Know the first rule in dealing w/ the devil ??
1st. "Don't"
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 my last post on this subject.
If I have offended anyone, well It was not my intent. sorry you feel that way.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I read this as saying, Ed has had problems with dealing with the SSDF, and he
should not do so, cause he would be dealing once again with his devil (which is
a figure of speech).
As for accusing you guys of doing something wrong, he is stating he has no proof
of anything wrong, and yes you guys should be more accurate in regard to testing
all top programs instead of the ones that are easiest for you guys (all of which
you have told me before as your reason why, and I do not dispute that)
So I take it that he is saying you are testing a Rebel which will not give
accurate results cause of the Autoplayer, So why play it at all, unless you want
false results.
Its just that somebody has decided to jump up and down on the Devil comment.
This post is very easy to understand in my view and is not offending.
To me the post reads
You are testing Rebel with a buggy autoplayer, the program will not give
accurate test results. Ed has had a problem dealing with the SSDF in the past,
and for him to allow his program to be tested even with a bug, he is dealing
with his devil again.
But since Ed said that he is allowing this for the hard core supporters, knowing
there is a bug, this person just wanted to air his view that he does not support
Ed view.
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.