Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 04:14:00 12/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2005 at 06:22:25, Marc Lacrosse wrote: >On December 12, 2005 at 01:00:50, Sandro Necchi wrote: > > >>I am getting fun making books, so I have made one in 10 minutes on Rybka and >>looking what happens...am I allowed to do so? I think so. >> > >Sure you are. > >But I am feeling equally allowed to have a critical opinion on the way you tell >the story, as nobody else than you decided to have a public discussion on this >topic. >Weren't you the one who initiated the thread? Ok, but there are ways and ways to make critics and you have exaggerated. I was surprised that out of 4 games the score was so high considering that the book was not specifically made for that program, a commercial book with so many alternatives and that was doing quite well. You have interpretated the message the way you wanted and criticized me for that...this was wrong but instead of apologying you have continued. You said that I was going not to tell the score at that was at least...while I only said that I was not going to show more games... Correct? Read my post again. If you are upset with someone for the Fruit story I have nothing to do with it. > >The title of your initial post was "Rybka book made just for fun and the >program...oustanding result!". > >Anybody would have opened it with the feeling that you had contributed a >significant improvement to rybka already impressive results with your "made for >fun" book. For 4 games it is, but I did not say that the book would add something...this is something you said...I only showed the games and the score...of course everybody here knows the meaning of 4 games, so you should too. I did not say that my books are better than yours or anybody else, but you listed results which were wrong except one game we lost against Fruit. So, you are complaining about 4 games while you are referring to one only; QUITE FUN! How many WCCC titles have you won? I have won 8 including the blitz ones, but never said that the merit was mine as always said the program won. I this is true, than it is true also that the program lost...don't you think so? > >And then discovering that this superlative title was for a mere four games match >was a bit surprising when there are already reports for hundreds of Rybka games. The final score will be advised...I am confident it will be good...maybe not as good as your books...of course! > >A four games match has no signification. How can this result be an "outstanding >result!" (with an exclamation mark)? > >>I did not make any comments on you and your work, why are you on mine? > >When _you_ decide to publish results in a public forum and when _you_ describe >these results as outstanding, nobody could have a diverging opinion ? It depends how one show the divergin opinion... > >>Do you want to start a war? > >Not at all. >If you initiate a thread, do not be surprised that it is possible that someone >will not agree with your opinion. I have no problems with people that do not agree with me, but your way to desagree is "QUITE ORIGINAL AT LEAST!" > >Moreover you posted more on this topic in a couple of days (19 posts by you in >the same thread in less than two days) than on your whole book-cooking work >during the last six months. I just sent two posts in the same time... You can post as much you want...did I said something on those? I did respect you and your opinions as well as your work. > >I would prefer getting news on your ongoing progresses with shredder 9 ans 10. Some other people may not and wants something more...shall I write only on what you like? > >Marc Sandro
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.