Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 11:22:06 02/19/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2005 at 12:18:45, Sune Fischer wrote: >On February 19, 2005 at 11:39:31, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > > >>>I'm not interested in 1 example, I'm interested in Elo, ie. what can be expected >>>on the average. >> >>I gave a percentage but I wont point out the opponents. Neither some people this >>nor your way to flame will essential information in my preparation. >> >>If you understand what 30% means. It is Ok. If you understood my example >>(although I doubt it based on your previous postins), It is Ok. >> >>If you think, that a book tuned by hand is silly and it doesnt represent any >>useful thing. You will be sucked in official Tournaments. That´all. > >I don't care so much about "official" tournaments. > If you dont care, why to >>> >>>If you claim 10 of 10 it's just not a representative example. >>> >> >>Every unique result wont be representative for you. So it is useless to explain >>what I mean. > >I thought maybe you could interpret the data and present me with a summary / >conclusion. >Remember you did claim to have proof it was more than 100 Elo :) > I did not claim, I said a percentage 30%. I dont have to provide you sepecific results, I gave you an exanpple and you simply as Uri Blass did not read. It is not my problem, it is yours because of lack of comprehension. You are not somebody important or decisive for computer chess to show my private results. >>>This whole book / anti-book / anti-anti-book / anti-anti-anti-book competition >>>seems real silly to me, but if there is enough Elo to be found.... >>> >> >>That is the reason why you engine will be always beated. > >I suspect the reason is that I have a full time job and only one computer for >testing. I have a full time job out of computer chess. >But you are right that it will always lose some points because I am not >interested in cooking anti-EngineX book lines. Amazing lack of comprenhension. Well, I dont know who will waste any time teaching you reading correctly. :) > >It doesn't seem like real rating to me, yes you will score extra points in a >tournament here or there, but are you going to be a co-player like that to the >engine always whereever it goes whereever it plays? > >Of course not, you might eventually want to sell it, you want it to do well on >the SSDF or whatever. The program must stand on it's own two feet, no holding >hands with a book-specialist all the time. Well, more crappy and false accusations. I have a full time job in my country (5 times repeated the same thing) where I earn enough money. Since, you dont ready what it is written here: Nobody has paid me a coin for doing books or any activity related to computer chess. Maybe, you feel frustrated because you are expecting to earn money from computer chess, You have not been able to do it. > >Everything must be automated, learning, book generation, everything or it won't >be "real" (IMHO). > >>It is sillier to reply a topic without being interested. What are your >>intentions there? Flame the topic? > >Getting to the truth :) > I dont see that it is a good way, accusing people of something that is false and you still think people will react peacefully. Better is you get your truth at your restroom. :))) AO.
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.