Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:25:35 08/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 24, 1999 at 07:15:35, Thorsten Czub wrote:
>On August 23, 1999 at 11:11:35, KarinsDad wrote:
>
>>The position you are taking is an arrogant one of:
>
>>We are the programmers. We are god. We know what is right. KarinsDad has not
>>even played the program, so he is "prejudiced and talking nonsense". He "does
>>not know what a bug is". How much more arrogant can you get Thorsten? You think
>>that since you are an intelligent programmer that nobody else has a mind and is
>>capable of rational thought?
>
>
>The arrongance is on your side.
>I am no programmer.
Then why are you pretending that an obvious programmer design bug is a feature?
But i know that when people talk about books they have never
>read, and talk about movies they have never seen, and talk about people they
>don't know and evaluate programs they have never installed nor bought, than
>these people have prejudices.
>I don't know if you have a mind.
>I am not sure if you are capable of rational thoughts. I can only guess you are.
>But this would be a prejudice too.
Yes, I noticed that you snipped out my discussion on the topic at hand and left
in only my commentary on your attack on me. Typical losing side tactic. Ignore
the debate and switch into a different topic.
What you wrote here about books and movies is a fallicy in logic. If you think
your oppoenent doesn't know everything about a topic, then you attack his lack
of knowledge about the entire area as opposed to discusing the specific topic.
This is a simple trick. I expected better.
Stick to discussion of the bug/feature and leave the other attacks aside ("I am
not sure if you are capable of rational thought"; cut me a break).
>
>
>> You think that one must PLAY CSTal in order to be
>>able to distinguish between a bug and a feature? You think that people such as
>>myself that have been in the computer industry for 20 years and have been
>>playing chess for 30 years are incapable of knowing a bug in a chess program
>>when they read about it?
>
>I don't know where you have been for 30 years.
>a program that is trying to emulate human playing style oversteps a time
>control.
If it is trying to emulate overstepping the time control, it is doing a lousy
job. A human usually oversteps the time control with less than a minute to play
on the last move, not with 4 1/2 minutes to play on the last move in a won
position.
>you call it a bug. i wonder why !
Because it is. If after all of this debate, you are incapable of admiting the
slim possibility that myself and others could be right, then why are you even
discussing it? You obviously have no conception that others could be right and
that you could be wrong, so why bother?
>the program is even named after a human beeing.
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China on a Wednesday
afternoon? Who cares what the program is named? The program does not make other
human-like mistakes like declaring a draw after a second repetition of a
position, so why would this almost human-like mistake be considered a feature?
CSTal is human-like because it makes moves similar to a human, not because it
does anything else similar to a human. Get a clue.
>
>
>
>>Sorry to disappoint you pal, but I am not the only one with this position on
>>this forum. And, some of the other people who agree with me HAVE purchased
>>CSTal. And, some of the other people who agree with me HAVE been writing chess
>>programs for decades.
>
>If they don't like cstal they should send it back to the producer or to
>the dealer. nobody forces you to buy it.
>nobody needs you to buy it.
>
>
>>What you are describing COULD be a feature IF a person playing the program could
>>turn it off and on. But without that capability, it's just another bug. We ALL
>>understand your position of human-like play, we just do not understand you
>>position of human-like mistakes having to be forced down the throat of your
>>customers. It's unfortunate that you are incapable of understanding our
>>position.
>
>as i said: the arrogance is on your side.
>
>
>>KarinsDad :)
>
>sign with your real name than we can talk about your 30 years of experience
>in this field.
Again, what does this have to do with what we are talking about? Answer:
nothing. Why is it that you feel the need to poke at people when discussing
something? In another message, you told someone else to grow up. To me, you told
me that I didn't know what a bug is, that my opinions were nonsense, and you do
not know if I have a mind. Can you not even discuss an issue without resorting
to cheap shots and tricks? Are you so ingrained in the RGCC mentality that you
cannot act like a reasonable adult on this forum?
A few people have told me that they treat you with kid gloves around here
because you are so volatile and unpredictable. I see no reason to give you
special treatment. If you cannot rationally discuss the topic at hand without
resorting to personal attacks on others, then go away.
KarinsDad :(
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.