Author: Paul Petersson
Date: 18:29:19 05/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 11, 1998 at 21:19:34, Detlef Pordzik wrote: >On May 09, 1998 at 01:12:28, Paul Petersson wrote: > >>On May 08, 1998 at 19:24:54, Detlef Pordzik wrote: > >Dear Paul, > >sorry for the late answer - Mr. PC was the reason - tried to mess around >with >me.... > >>>Who is " us " I should trust in, Paul ?? >> >>The "us" I was refering to is the SSDF, and I didn´t say that you should >>trust us! That´s up to you. >> >>But since I is one of the testers in SSDF, who have done a large part of >>testing with Fritz 5, I don´t take it very lightly when I hear people >>saying things like "SSDF accepted CB hardware". SSDF never accepted any >>hardware from CB, only a non-public (software)autoplayer. > >I understand - and, your situation, as well. >In advance - >please keep in mind, and if you don't know, let me tell you, that I've >allway >had, shown + stated greatest respect towards the private people within >the >SSDF - which mainly results from them old times, where you had to carry >huge >boards around and play hours by hours..... > >Beside this, and with this comment I'll end this up from my side for not >to bore the comrades here, >Paul - name it hardware, software - brickware, it doesn't depend. > >It was very, very - unlucky - to name it this way , to accept an >unknown, non-commerial available thing thru' a retailing company - which >is the >distributor of the product itself. >In the end, I don't doubt, don't question, - but have an unpleasant >feeling about this, which I share with alot of others - >because it opens doors for suggestions of all kinds. >Naturally none of them against SSDF. >That's all. > >>You should read my postings more carefully. Only someone who believed >>that CB gave Enrique and the SSDF different autoplayers would be a bit >>paranoid. But you don´t *really* believe that do you? Because that would >>suggest that the SSDF and CB was in some form of conspiracy against the >>rest of the computerchessworld. Otherwise CB would have been caught had >>Ed tested his special Rebel with the SSDF. You wouldn´t want to suggest >>such a conspiracy would you? *That* wouldn´t be nice. > >Of course not - different suggestions, see above. > >>I am really surprised that someone that says that he is interested in >>the truth shows so little enthusiasm when a opportunity to settle this >>suddenly appears. I would have expected the opposite. > >I haven't got much enthusiasm left anymore in general - beside this, I >be- >lieve, the one + only way - to clear up everything, would have been the >original autoplayer given to SSDF. >This one, and no different one. > >>I´m pretty suspicious myself, but I would like some hard facts before I >>start makeing conspiracy theories. > >Sure - if one does so.... > >>You shouldn´t be so upset then if you got a little flak from others with >>different oppinions! > >I ain't upset Paul. >It's just my tradition - allways 100 % - all or nothin'. > >>As clearly as a newborn kitten. :) > >That's fine ! > >Keep on rockin' > OK, let´s stop our discussion here. I have a game running as I write this that might be interesting. It shows that even a much weaker program like old WChess can beat Fritz 5. WChess 1.06 P90/8MB - Fritz 5 P200 MMX/64MB(44MB) 1. d4, d5 2. c4, e6 3. Nc3, c6 4. e3, Nf6 5. Nf3, Nbd7 6. Bd3, dxc4 7. Bxc4, b5 8. Bd3, a6 9. e4, c5 10. e5, cxd4 11. Nxb5, axb5 12. exf6, gxf6 13. Nxd4, Qb6 14. Nxb5, Bb7 15. 0-0, Rg8 16. g3, Ne5 17. Be3, Qe6 18. f3, Bc5 19. Bxc5, Qxc5+ 20. Kh1, Rd8 21. Rc1, Qe3 22. Nd6+, Rxd6 23. Bb5+, Rc6 24. Qd6, Qb6 25. Rfd1, Rg5 26. Rc5, Ba8 27. a4, Nc4 28. Bxc6+, Bxc6 29. Rxc6, Nxc6 30. Rxb6, Nc8 31. Rb8, Rc5 32. a5, f5 33. a6, Ke7 34. Rb7+, Kf6 35. Rdd7, Ra5 36. Rxf7+, Ke5 37. Rfc7, Ra1+ 38. Kg2, Rxa6 39. Rxc8, Rd6 40. f4+, Ke4 41. Rc2, Kd3 42. Rbc7, Ke3 43. R7c6, Rxc6 44. Rxc6, Kd4 45. b4, Kd5 and Wchess will win. Paul >ELVIS
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.