Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 11:54:05 03/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1998 at 20:18:08, Scott Carmichael wrote:
> A materialist ? Certainly, I want material proof of these things before
>I deride a program, or its publisher/developer/programmer. How about
>believing in the fact that a person is innocent until proven guilty?
To answer in your image:
ChessBase lost their INNOCENCE many years before.
> The
>more you write here, the more you show yourself to be involved in this
>matter simply to hunt witches, not to establish anything useful.
Your images are quite sharp. Nobody is killed. Nobody is tortured.
I have Fritz for a long time. And others too.
If Fritz would have been such a monster, my results would have had to
reflect this, or ?
> And it is becoming more and more obvious that the problem isn't which
>book Fritz is using, but rather who can type the most incessant drivel
>without having to show solid proof.
This is not a competition. Nobody has to win against any other guy.
This is a discussion, if you want so. It is allowed to have all kind of
opinions. You don't lose your face just because your WAY of pointing it
out is weak. Maybe you overestimate the form of discussion here. As I
said. This is not a law court that has to proof anything nor a
competition in having the best
or impressive statement.
We (or at least myself) are relaxed. I am sitting here very normal, and
not in anger or trying to show you are wrong or stupid. I am only
telling my mind.
> Debate and disccussion are wonderous
>creations of the human mind, but they still rely on proof to be
>effective, which is, quite honestly, the reason your comments in this
>matter are moot.
I am different opinion. If you discuss whatever topic, (pro nuclear
power stations, against NATO, pro abort, against smoke, against guns for
kids) you have never ANY real proof. You discuss with prejudices and
nobody can show he is right. It has more to do with tolerance than with
beeing RIGHT. I wonder that you don't see this.
> In the end, the ultimate proof will come as a score at the end of a
>game played on even terms, and you can bet on that with your friends.
Nonsense.
A) there is no ultimate proof.
B) no score does reflect an ultimative proof for ANYTHING. Even a mate
score does not show the ELO of anybody.
C) I have seen many games where X beats Y and Y was stronger.
I have seen many games that turned arround. And it was great luck
WHO won. Not the best program won, but the program doing the last
mistake. You cannot really say that X was stronger in this case just it
made the last mistake.
>SMILE, it's only the real world that will pass you by. But don't fret,
>for I have certainly gotten a laugh from your rebuttal.
So - we can all laugh. At least ONE good thing of this discussion.
:-)
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.