Author: Detlef Pordzik
Date: 12:46:51 03/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 01, 1998 at 08:08:52, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>3rd : now - I know my " old chap " Thorsten for many years...and his >>uncommon >>way of approachin' things, i.e. a prog, it's benefit - or not. >> >>For me things get absolutely far too academic, when we start to >>implement feelings + cryptical statements like the worthy of a frog, a >>stone - statistics show no real.....kissin' a droid or a girl..... > >I only wanted to say that a number cannot represent your girl friend ! erhhhhh?? >I guess Peter could not give a number for UTE although they have played >1000 of games in all the years :-) rrrrrrrr - suggestingly she'd get a " 1 "........ ( beg your pardon - if this friendly meant joke may be allowed once ) >Am I correct Peter ? Ute is more than any number could imply ?! >I hope Bob does not talk about HIS wife in the same way. >I do not talk about chess programs in numbers. I like to present >pgn-games and ask the programmer : what do you think has happened in >this game. Would you please replay it ? >Therefore you don't need numbers you need to replay a chess game. >I guess this has more to do with chess than presenting numbers in a list >... > > >>now please : WHERE to get an intention of the quality of the prog - if >>not using those lists ?? > >The list is unable to talk about QUALITY. The list talks about quantity. I know your opinions - I know your sights - ever since - alot of 'em are intersting, 'cause approachin' the thing from a different aspect - which others wouldn't try. But HERE I CANNOT agree ! A game is measured by 1:0 - 0,5 : 0,5 - 0 : 1.......no feelin's, no nothin. Only the quantity of the games - results - can give a reliability - somehow. So if you beat me 22 times outta 30 matches - there ain't no feelin' you should be stronger - got it ? BTW : I'd like to ask : why does nobody ever mention the qualified lists of Eric Hallsworth ?? I've been readin' this mag since many years - and as they still take care of the board comps - it's got some sympathy from me. On the other hand, he offers a lot of balancing possibilities, i.e. faster machine ( + xx), more / less RAM - all this is really lookin' good. And the list compares somehow to the swedish friends work. Tell me - why is it so uncommon ( I really don't know...) > >>We gotta set up an international colloquium of people with the approved >>- best feelings instead of list use - to judge the upcomoing new >>progs..... >>that really can't be true ! C'mon ! > >If the methods are somehow strange (giving fritz4 only 512 K Hash would >be very strange e.g. ) the data=numbers you get are not true ! >You get wrong data Elvis ! Yes, I can't deny - it was ONE phonecall - I can't lend a hand for it - I think I expressed it - I'm one of the very last, who wants to get a new rumour started. >You don't get quality . All you get is wrong quantity ! See above - that's the aim here - struggle for the best sight.......in a correct, respectful manner..... ELVIS > > >> >>ELVIS
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.