Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 01:56:27 08/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2005 at 03:31:21, Stephen A. Boak wrote:
>On August 21, 2005 at 15:11:28, Marc Lacrosse wrote:
>
>>
>>To take your own words I _already_ had comments that were "wholehearted
>>(unreserved, unrestricted)" praise of zappa's play and achievements.
>>
>
>My apologies for upsetting you while making my point.
>
>1. I was not discussing your words of praise for Zappa in other emails.
>
>I presume you gave the greatest possible accolades (unreservedly) to Zappa's
>author. Wonderful! You were magnificent! No problem with those postings
>whatsoever.
>
>2. It was your specific allegation of bias regarding Ed Schroeder's posting that
>I found objectionable.
>
>If praising a tremendous competitor who finishes first by a wide margin is
>biased against another excellent competitor who finishes 2nd, then I guess one
>cannot rendor unstinting praise to a clear victor, no matter how dominating the
>performance.
>
>Ed's praise for Zappa / Anthony Cozzie was loud & clear. He thought the
>performance was tremendous. It was. Therefore, nothing biased about it ...
>since Zappa & author deserved the victory wholeheartedly.
>
>Zappa's performance was outstanding ... nearly perfect in results.
>
>Fabien's program, Fruit, did very well. No need to make excuses for it, or to
>try to elevate it's 2nd place finish into something more. Especially when that
>detracts (intentionally or accidentally) from Zappa's victory.
>
>Fabien isn't doing that. Nor should you.
>
>If you wished to praise Fabien for Fruit's fine result, all you had to do was
>start a new thread with a suitable heading--no problem.
>
>Instead, you denigrated Ed & his post (improperly, IMO) and his generous praise
>for Zappa's performance, which praise was fully earned by the programmer of that
>exceedingly strong program.
>
>There was no need to accuse Ed of bias, in order to lay a foundation for your
>observations about how well Fruit did with one processor, etc.
>
>3. My apologies also if I misinterpreted that specific posting of yours.
>
>Perhaps your choice of word ("biased") was not truly reflective of the point you
>were trying to make. Understandable possibility, if a poster is not a native
>speaker of English.
>
>Your English is generally quite good--not criticizing it.
>
>4. Okay, I've burned my soapbox (I've stepped down).
Yep Steve, you said it well.
Like to add 2 points,
1) There was a time (1998/99 I believe) Fritz 6a was the absolute no.1
dominating all (private) tournaments including the SSDF list. It was a period I
thought F6a would keep its first place at the SSDF for years to come. Wrong.
Progress simply continued...
Then Shredder came, saw and conquered and I thought Stefan preluded a new and
long Richard Lang period. And now this tournament... Not that things are now
conclusive... I remember a certain WCCC in 1986 where an amateur program almost
became WC but after its commercial release appeared not that strong at all.
Meaning that IMO Zappa (despite this total blow) still has to earn its place in
the CC community enabling users to use, test and microscope it, in other words,
face the real world.
2) Fruit. Pay attention Marc. Fruit is a sensation, it will change CC
dramatically because of its free source code. Many programmers will profit from
Fabien's code, this includes my respected ex-colleagues and I expect a lot from
them.
Bottom line: CC is still exciting, lots of progress is looming, a new and
challenging era has started, Fabien and Anthony having given the starting shot.
Wonderful...............
Ed
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.