Author: Oliver Y.
Date: 03:07:42 12/11/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 1998 at 04:48:05, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >On December 11, 1998 at 02:18:41, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On December 10, 1998 at 08:21:11, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>> >>>On December 10, 1998 at 08:03:27, Harald Faber wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 1998 at 07:50:29, Soren Riis wrote: >>>> >>>>>If you want women to like chess computers you will probably have to build it >>>>>so it cries and wet its panties if the opponent (!) plays a weak move. >>>>>This is probable still to simplistic so you will have to build in a random >>>>>generator which generates the computers "emotions". Sometimes it does not >>>>>want to play, sometimes it want to win, sometime get angry if it wins, >>>>>and most of the time it just want to play scrapple. In short make >>>>>the programme behave more like a woman ;-) >>>>>Soren Riis >>>> >>>>This will probably work but the plaing strength will suffer. :-) >>> >>> >>>CM6000 is perfect for women, for an angry woman personality you just put the >>>attacking setting up full. For depressed, just put the defense up full and make >>>CM accept draws more often, like it does not care if it wins or loses. >>> >>>And Most importantly if it is that time of the month, full scale on the >>>randomness of play setting will make it unpredictable and like a woman. >>> >>>There are an endless possibilities to create a personality with CM6000 for a >>>woman to get along with and share their girl secrets with :-) >>> >>>This is great, when my fiance goes away and I cannot play with her. I will just >>>create her mood and her playing strength with Chessmaster. >>> >>>Is there anything this program cannot do :-) (yes I know there is so shut up) >> >>If you were a woman, and you read the post above, would you be offended? >> >>Did you ask this question to yourself before you posted? >> >>My comments could be applied to a number in this thread, I'm not intending to >>pick on any one person. >> >>Dave Gomboc > >It is fun, I could make the same personalities for a variety of men as well. Counterfactual. You did not in fact do the same for men. Moreover, doing so would absolve nothing. See below. >Well I let my Lady read it, and she laughed, then wacked me on the back of my >head and called me a prick. Both of the above sentences contain the naturalistic fallacy. >But she did it with good humour, I hope you are not one of these people who >stand up for womens ethics. Inappropriate use of anecdotal evidence. >They want to be treated on the same level as a man >then they have to roll with the harmless jibes. Any social psychologist, of any political persuasion, would tell you such jokes in fact are very harmful. Don't trust me. Ask them. >I would not get offended if a woman was to post on here and say something about >us dumb males. Incorrect assumption of existing equality and/or equity within society. >I posted it because my lady found it funny, not offensive and if >she did find it offensive I would not have posted it. Good to know that your woman's opinion is congruent with the population at large that Dave is concerned with. >:-) Go with the flow of life man. Again, you've committed the naturalistic fallacy. Factual conclusion: some men can be consistently illogical, therefore, they must engage chess programs in order to resolve this defect. Show this post to your wife. Tell us what she calls you after she hits you on the head again...
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.