Author: Tony Hedlund
Date: 09:04:42 02/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 20, 2003 at 10:41:39, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>On February 20, 2003 at 10:32:04, Tony Hedlund wrote:
>
>>On February 18, 2003 at 16:11:43, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>
>>>On February 18, 2003 at 13:20:19, Tony Hedlund wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 17:56:02, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 13:36:28, Tony Hedlund wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 09:05:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 06:53:14, Uri Blass wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On February 17, 2003 at 06:29:23, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On February 16, 2003 at 13:21:39, Tony Hedlund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On February 15, 2003 at 07:12:10, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On February 15, 2003 at 05:24:43, Tony Hedlund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 14, 2003 at 16:27:31, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 14, 2003 at 13:32:16, Tony Hedlund wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 14, 2003 at 09:27:26, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On February 14, 2003 at 08:43:12, Bob Durrett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Excellent points. The "bottom line" is that SSDF presented their findings
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>properly, but the problem is in interpretation. SSDF cannot be held responsible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for errors in interpretation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Bob D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong conclusion. I tried to explain the points but apparently it's a bit too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>difficult. In short : If you use a system of statistics you are not allowed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>make your own presentation. The presentation by SSDF is FALSE. That is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>point. False and unallowed. Instead of 1., 2., 3., they should say 1.-3., not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>should, but must, if the differences in the actual results are way smaller than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the error in the tests itself. Is that impossible to understand?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then the right presentation is:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-10 Shredder 7 2801-2737
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-10 Deep Fritz 7 2789-2732
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-11 Fritz 7 2770-2711
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-2? Shredder 7 UCI 2761-2638
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-15 Chess Tiger 15 2753-2700
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-15 Shredder 6 Pad UCI 2750-2703
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-16 Shredder 6 2750-2689
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-19 Chess Tiger 14 2744-2684
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-19 Deep Fritz 2741-2680
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>1-19 Gambit Tiger 2 2739-2681
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3-2? Junior 7 2715-2659
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4-2? Hiarcs 8 2707-2657
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and so on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for the fine joke, Tony. Perhaps you lay your figer into the wound!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You want to have a number one, right? Then you make tests, just like you do,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>fair and correct. And then you come into the period where you must evaluate your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>results. You see that you have no clear umber one. Now two possibilities:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>1) You go on into decisive mode and do further tests, the "list" date can wait.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>2) You stay to your traditions and show up with your list. But then, please, do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>NOT present the list either in the classical way, nor in your joking Mr. Bean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>version, but simply make such packages:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>1.-3. A B C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>4.-5. D E
>>>>>>>>>>>>>6. F
>>>>>>>>>>>>>7.-10. G H I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Tell me please, where the problem is with this method?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Why just three strongest engines? With the margin of errors Gambit Tiger 2 could
>>>>>>>>>>>>be as strong as the other top engines. I find Mr. Bean's version more logic then
>>>>>>>>>>>>yours. Could you please explain your method further.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>SSDF has good statistics experts. Consult these experts and you will understand
>>>>>>>>>>>why Gambit Tiger 2 could NOT be number one. My first three was a pool where all
>>>>>>>>>>>could be number one. Only Shredder 7 UCI could be included, but my example was
>>>>>>>>>>>more a demonstration of such a list. It's not MY method. It's simply what
>>>>>>>>>>>careful researchers would do if they had your results. Perhaps you don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>it, Tony, but the presentation of the results must have a base in the results.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What do you propose SSDF do exactly? Give me a clear example of how you would
>>>>>>>>>>present the data. Don't give me this A, B and C. You have the result, wich
>>>>>>>>>>programs are A, B and C?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>In other words it might well be that one day you will have a clear number one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The bottom line is that when we reach a margin of error close to zero, then we
>>>>>>>>>>can claim a number one? When will that happen? After 10 000 games by each
>>>>>>>>>>entrance?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Or do you believe that your method guarantees the eternal status quo?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Is it because you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>kind of strong wish to present a umber one by all means?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you also think that FIDE shouldn't have a number one on there list? Is
>>>>>>>>>>>>Kasparov really the best player?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Please do not seek for outside help, when you run out of arguments in favor of
>>>>>>>>>>>your own presentation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>FIDE, ICCF and SSDF all have a ratinglist. And we all use professor Arpad Elo's
>>>>>>>>>>metod of measure strenght in chess. And yes I argue for our way of presentation.
>>>>>>>>>>ICCF's number one Ulf Andersson have played 25 games! Figure the margin of error
>>>>>>>>>>there. They probably don't have any careful researchers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Please let's simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>discuss this little topic. If you tell me, listen, Rolf, I am not allowed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>tell you, but you are right, that a umber one prog is very important for us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It seem to be more important to others.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, that was my deeper assumption. Could you give more details?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Details?
>>>>>>>>>>People here at CCC seem to be looking forward for our next list, to see wich is
>>>>>>>>>>number one. And then they congratulate the programmer. And of course the
>>>>>>>>>>commercials use it in there advertisement. As they always has. When we started
>>>>>>>>>>our list, it was as a complement to our reviews for new programmes.
>>>>>>>>>>Personally I'm not interested in wich program is number one. I'm more interested
>>>>>>>>>>in how the different engines are playing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I can well imagine your personal sentiments and I have great respect for your
>>>>>>>>>efforts with SSDF as a whole but you can't stop history's progress. When you
>>>>>>>>>played move by move with the ancient chessboards your dedication and hard work
>>>>>>>>>was really sensational and people got results for their virgin background. Today
>>>>>>>>>- with autoplayed games - you have more time to do sound statistics. However, if
>>>>>>>>>simply the top programs do not differ that much then you can't call out a number
>>>>>>>>>one. Or you play millions of games. But who guarantees you that then you will
>>>>>>>>>have a clear first? No - you should accept the actual reality. And that is
>>>>>>>>>equality among the top entries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are misleaden if you think that the thankfullness of the CC users was linked
>>>>>>>>>with your presentation of a number one. It was because of your general efforts
>>>>>>>>>to the best of CC.
>>>>>>>> And the business world at that time was very coloured. But
>>>>>>>>>today we have a single important company. Do you want to do your job for them
>>>>>>>>>and their marketing interests or for the users around the world? You must
>>>>>>>>>accept that if statistically you have no clear first then you can't present a
>>>>>>>>>number one program.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Number one only means leading it does not mean best.
>>>>>>>>I do not see what is your problem with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does that bother you??? You are independent! But
>>>>>>>>>independent does not mean naive.Why don't you consider the consequences of such
>>>>>>>>>strange events: Fritz8 is out for months and you don't test it. I read that you
>>>>>>>>>wait until ChessBase will send you a copy. But that then would no longer speak
>>>>>>>>>for your independent tests. Because factor time of testbeginning always was a
>>>>>>>>>factor. All such dangers and difficulties you could avoid with sound statistics
>>>>>>>>>and certain basic guidelines. You must become independent of such marketing
>>>>>>>>>decisions by ChessBase.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I do not see what is the problem with waiting for chessbase to send the program.
>>>>>>>>It is not that they do everything that chessbase tell them and
>>>>>>>>I believe that if chessbase ask them not to test programs of another company
>>>>>>>>like Tiger they will not do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I believe that they should test only if programmers ask them otherwise they may
>>>>>>>>waste time on testing the wrong versions and they will have no computer time
>>>>>>>>to test the right versions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They did not test a lot of programs and Fritz8 is not alone.
>>>>>>>>They did not test Movei and hundreds of free programs and I see no reason that
>>>>>>>>testing Fritz8 is more important when the programmer did not ask them to do it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note that I did not ask them to test Movei and I do not complain(Maybe I will
>>>>>>>>ask them in the future when Movei will be significantly better).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Note also that testing Fritz8 is more important than testing Movei if both
>>>>>>>>programmers ask them to do it but if chessbase do not ask them to do it then
>>>>>>>>buying Fritz8 in order to test it may be a waste of time because they will
>>>>>>>>have no time to test stronger Fritz.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I think that the customers may also be intereted in the rating of Fritz that
>>>>>>>>chessbase send them because I believe that the customers will get the same Fritz
>>>>>>>>as an update and if the ssdf waste time now on testing Fritz8 they will have no
>>>>>>>>computer time to test the upgrade that chessbase may release.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You have interesting views on independance. Please come into CTF so that we can
>>>>>>>talk about Israel. What you say is unacceptable from the point of independant
>>>>>>>testings. You don't believe it, but then you have no knowledge about the
>>>>>>>neccessities of statistics. It's not a moral or such, it's a must! Otherwise the
>>>>>>>results are NOT independant and you can trash SSDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What you are saying is, since our number one is a program from Chessbase then we
>>>>>>can't be independent. If Ruffian was number one this thread wouldn't have
>>>>>>started, would it?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, where did I say such a nonsense? Please learn English before you make such
>>>>>conclusions. I think I know what you are doing here. Instead of answering
>>>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?284772, what you _couldn't_, you
>>>>>step in here [what is normally no problem, but here it _is_ a problem!] without
>>>>>exact understanding for the language of a message and try to stir confusion. The
>>>>>reason why you do that is clear. You know that you have no justification for
>>>>>your presentation of a number "one" and you see ccritics, so there is a single
>>>>>possibility and that is stirring confusion, so that the reader should hear you
>>>>>saying: "well, you know this is Rolf, what could he have to say? We, the SSDF,
>>>>>are in the business for decades!" But all such doctoring does NOT change the
>>>>>fact that you have no base for the presenting of Shredder 7 as "number one".
>>>>
>>>>It seems to me that you are running out of arguments, and so the insults starts.
>>>
>>>It's the other way round. I gave my strongest argument that you must create
>>>confusion (it's only Rolf, it's only against ChessBase), because you have no
>>>base (statistically) for the presentation of a number one. And sure - you still
>>>have no arguments. Therefore you now invent a new confusion, namely that I would
>>>'insult'. Could you tell me where I insult? Where exactly?
>>
>>Above you write "Please learn English before you make such conclusions." And in
>>the end you write "Again, please try to learn English before you step in other
>>people's debates." I maybe to sensitive, but accusing me to not understand
>>English is insulting.
>
>Yes, because you take everything at face value. How could I, with my weak
>English invite you to learn better English. Hint => Joking. And that is proven.
What is proven? That you was joking? How have you proved that?
>But I leave it here. This message will prove that are no game at debates. You
>simply prefer to make _your_ jokes and leave most of the questions aside.
Can you give an example where I'm joking?
>This
>message here does prove that have no answers for most of my questions. Just take
>a look for yourself. Well, I will call it arrogance again. Then you will reply
>"but he's insulting". And exactly that is the defamation. Like Sune Fischer.
>Butr answers, you have not.
I've answered on everything until your sentence "Tony, I invite you to think
about all this - if you have time. Let's discuss this in a friendly atmosphere.
Perhaps we can find a new base for SSDF."
It seem to me that you didn't expect me to have so much answers. So you call me
arrogant and refuse to continue the debate.
Tony
>Rolf Tueschen
>
>
>
>>
>>>Why should I insult
>>>you, you have never done me wrong in the past, other to your collegues Bertil
>>>and Peter F. No, I declare that I had no reason to insult you and would never do
>>>that. For me this is here more a psychological topic. I ask myself why such a
>>>decent person like yourself suddenly go into such a mode of larmoyance.
>>>
>>>We all here, me included, respect you in SSDF for the huge work you've done over
>>>the decades. When I had the possibility to ask my questions in 1996, I was so
>>>happy, after so many years I had followed your list. But from the beginning I
>>>observed incredibly weak reactions. I will never forget the expression for
>>>critics, namely "member of the Czub Anti-SSDF gang [sic!!]". That is ridiculous
>>>for me because I had my questions right from my education in university studies
>>>and mathematics. Suddenly I was accused, defamed to be a member of a gang! That
>>>was in 1996.
>>>
>>>In the meantime I published so many faults in your methodology and always the
>>>main reply was "we are amateurs, not scientists".
>>>
>>>Let me give you the probably most serious argument against your test methods.
>>>You always argue that FIDE has Elolists, and you want to imply that your list
>>>would just be the same or at least similar. I object. For very basic reasons.
>>>Elo for human players has data a) for thousands of players and b) for thousands
>>>of games for each player.
>>
>>I very much doubt that. Where can I find this data?
>>
>>>Many players will have a record over the period of 30
>>>years and more.
>>
>>= One generation.
>>
>>>The databases of publicly known games is about 2,5 million
>>>games. -
>>
>>Rated games? I don't think so.
>>
>>>
>>>Now let's take a look what _you_ have. No insult meant, Tony, honestly.
>>>
>>>You know like I do, that you have modern "players" [program versions] with a
>>>life of 12 months
>>
>>= One generation
>>
>>>on possible different hard-ware. You always claim that you
>>>have a database of 60000 games.
>>
>>A database of 16000 games. But 90000 rated games played.
>>
>>>To exploit that pool you always declare that
>>>therefore a modern program MUST also be paired with a rather antique program.
>>
>>You mean that a new entrance must play against an entrance with an established
>>rating.
>>
>>>Then you claim that validity is assured through some 30 games of Swedish players
>>>20 years ago...
>>
>>We calibrated our first lists with 337 games played against swedish players
>>1987-1991. See: http://home.interact.se/~w100107/level.htm
>>
>>>
>>>You know what I know? I can tell you. With such conditions you have no base for
>>>a reasonable list. You have 5 or 10 programs each season that are comparable.
>>>YOu have no justification to start the tests always with a number of 1500 or
>>>such because the new version has ZERO Elo.
>>
>>I agree. A new entrance have no Elo.
>>
>>>And now you construct with imbreeding
>>>technology GM results. With Elo all this has nothing to do.
>>
>>Don't mix up Fide-elo with SSDF-Elo.
>>
>>>You have no history
>>>in your ranking. What you have is the artificial combining of representatives of
>>>differet species from different historic pasts. But these "representatives" have
>>>surprisingly no own history in the developments of hard-ware for instance. But
>>>you don't remark the basic fault. I explained it may times. If you use different
>>>hard ware you can't test the strengths of programs.
>>
>>How come? Shredder X A1200 is one entrance and Shredder X K6-2 450 is another.
>>I thought _that_ was trivial.
>>
>>>Nobody in SSDF understood
>>>this although it is a very trivial argument or truth.
>>>
>>>NB the difference to human Elo numbers. Look: Smyslov once was a World Champion,
>>>right? He is still playing today.But his performance is down to 2450 or
>>>something. But this is because of his age. Let's now take a look into SSDF
>>>former World leading programs. Excuse me, Tony, I have no data about the early
>>>results, but back in time MEPHISTO III surely was a good program. Or MChess 1.
>>>Just take a prog out of that time. Why does such a program no longer play
>>>today??? Why don't you test MChess 1 on Pentium IV??? That is what you should do
>>>among other things. But what you do in reality is this: You become not tired to
>>>test the newest versions of the company's progs. You have no interest for the
>>>where-abouts of your earlier favorits, it's as if you all threw them into the
>>>bin. And that makes your list so artificial and false!
>>>
>>>I know, that you could say that it makes no sense to let Mchess 1 play because
>>>1) we had MChess7 and 2) there is no sense in letting MChess1 play on P4.
>>>
>>>But if that is the case then you should admit that you could NOT compare your
>>>"list" with the human Elolist.
>>
>>Is that your problem!! Then I fully agree. You _can't_ compare the SSDF-Elolist
>>with the FIDE-Elolist.
>>
>>>Tony, I invite you to think about all this - if you have time. Let's discuss
>>>this in a friendly atmosphere. Perhaps we can find a new base for SSDF.
>>
>>Rolf, we already seem to have come to an understanding.
>>
>>Tony
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You are giving your personal opinions and nobody is allowed to attack you so far
>>>>>>>but what is if you simply had no idea what is going on here? You have no
>>>>>>>understanding for the meaning of average terms embedded in daily speech. You say
>>>>>>>but they only tell us who is leading! That doesn't mean that he's the best. But
>>>>>>>Uri, that is NOT the point at all. The point is that they cannot conclude that
>>>>>>>someone is leading with these 8 points and a margin of 30 on both sides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But we can!
>>>>>
>>>>>No, you can't! - Of course you can do what you want. Next time you could present
>>>>>X as new number one with 1 point advantage and 60 points of margin.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly!
>>>
>>>Inyour own interest you should reconsider that opinion.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>As you pointed out earlier, and I quot "SSDF has good statistics
>>>>>>experts".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Did I say that? Yes, often I like irony.
>>>>
>>>>So now it was irony?
>>>
>>>Of course. It was clear because everybody knows my critic of your false
>>>methodology. It's here in the archives and also on my homepage. See:
>>>http://hometown.aol.de/rolftueschen/rolftueschenmosaik.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You
>>>>>>>have no idea what that exactly means!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Speak for yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sure, that is what I always do! I am famous for it and therefore certain
>>>>>interested groups don't like me. But what is your business here? Uri and I have
>>>>>a communication for months now and you seem to feel envy?
>>>>
>>>>Running out of arguments? You said to me, and I quot "Please let's simply
>>>>discuss this little topic." So I was under the impression that this thread was
>>>>between us.
>>>
>>>yes. But here I was addressing Uri as you can see here below. You stepped i here
>>>but you didn't answer the other message I made.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>So then you can well talk about "Let them
>>>>>>>do what they do, they are not doing something wrong"! Uri, they are so wrong,
>>>>>>>more than your own Prime Minister! Because they do something very special:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They say that Shredder7 is the new number one, the new leader as you say. And
>>>>>>>they give these margins! Together that means: Folks, we have no clear result for
>>>>>>>place one! And I argue against the mistakes. But here in CCC experts behave as
>>>>>>>if the margins would make the overall verdict ok, because the experts know what
>>>>>>>margins mean. I translate: experts are saying that a lie is not a lie as long as
>>>>>>>the experts have a possibility to see whats really going on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>YOU say it's a lie. That's your opinion, not a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Again, please try to learn English before you step in other people's debates. I
>>>>>did NOT say what you believe here.
>>>>
>>>>More insults? Other people's debate? You said, and I quot "But here in CCC
>>>>experts behave as if the margins would make the overall verdict ok, because the
>>>>experts know what margins mean. I translate: experts are saying that a lie is
>>>>not a lie as long as the experts have a possibility to see whats really going
>>>>on."
>>>
>>>Yes, and that is the truth.I read more than once that experts here said that
>>>possible errors in SSDF were of no importance because the experts knew how what
>>>was meant. Interesting because the list is published in chess journals where
>>>thousands of users read it, users without expert status. So this is not a honest
>>>debate. IMO.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But the lack of
>>>>>>>respect for the dumb users is well allowed, because that is business.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We have respect for the users, it's for them we are doing the list. But we have
>>>>>>no respect for DUMB users.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh well, that will be a candidate for the quote of the year!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Against
>>>>>>>that confusion I say, no no, SSDF is responsible because THEY annouced new
>>>>>>>number 1!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes Rolf, SSDF is responsible for having a number 1 in the list.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, and that is why I criticised the faults of SSDF. Namely presenting a number
>>>>>one that is not number one.
>>>>
>>>>But it is number one, within the margin of errors.
>>>
>>>
>>>No! Within the margins you have no way to know who is first of the three progs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think a good analogy is this: you write a message
>>>>>here with "Tony" and you supply a photo that is showing a man with _green_ hair.
>>>>>Then in the header line you say "Tony" ("see photo, the man with the red [sic!]
>>>>>hair"). Then Rolf writes a critic and shows that green hair is not the same as
>>>>>red hair. Then Tony writes a message "we in SSDF have a long experience and
>>>>>never before users criticised us for the presentation of wrong-colored hair;
>>>>>only dumb users like Rolf have a problem with the difference between red and
>>>>>green hair; in Sweden the two colors are the _same_!!! We in SSDF also have many
>>>>>good color experts."
>>>>>
>>>>>:)
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the fine joke, Rolf.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you take jokes as personal insults? Please let's not go into that mode. I
>>>have great respect for you. And that does not change if you support errors in
>>>the SSDF list. I think we can discuss this and hope that it could be changed. As
>>>long as you don't call me names or make open insults, I try too give friendly
>>>opinions.
>>>
>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tony
>>>>
>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tony
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen
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.