Author: Pete Galati
Date: 23:31:28 04/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2000 at 02:12:19, Chessfun wrote: >On April 23, 2000 at 01:53:55, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On April 23, 2000 at 01:38:20, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On April 23, 2000 at 01:31:17, Pete Galati wrote: >>> >>>>On April 23, 2000 at 00:48:44, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 14:46:28, Pete Galati wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 15:02:19, Chessfun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 14:49:59, Pete Galati wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On April 22, 2000 at 14:20:57, A.L.Mourik wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hello dear CCC friends, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Although earlier reports from e.g. Jouni Uski, suggest an enormous increase in >>>>>>>>>strenght for Crafty 17.10 >>>>>>>>>Nuun 2 match result Fritz6 against Crafty 17.10 ends in a very clear >>>>>>>>>29,5-10,5!! victory for Fritz6. >>>>>>>>>Played on PII 400 8mb for HT, Timecontrol 5 min + 3 sec per move. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There isn't generally an enormous increase in strength from version to version >>>>>>>>of any program, that's unrealistic to expect there to be. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Your time controls are a bit short there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Pete >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Why didn't you say or ask that of Jouni when he posted? >>>>>>>as all he said was blitz, that may even have been faster >>>>>>>than this. >>>>>>>Thanks. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sorry, I don't read all posts, this one caught my eye because it was at the top >>>>>>of the board. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You had posted in the thread I referred to. >>>>>Which was Sensation Crafty 17-10 beats F6a in nunn1 . >>>>> >>>> >>>>You'd need to post the html of the post where I responded to that, setting the >>>>filters at 7 days and doing a search for "Sensation Crafty 17-10" does not turn >>>>anything up. I don't recall responding in such a thread. But if you're >>>>attempting to put me on trial for some comment that I may or may not have made >>>>about Crafty, then you simply have too much time on your hands. >>> >>> >>>It is fairly simple to set search for author. >>>You made no comment for a trial, it was the lack of request >>>for the time control of the blitz games then the statement in >>>this thread that it needs longer time controls. >>> >>>But, since your last comment obviously means you take every question >>>of your postings as an offense and feel the need to take a stab at >>>anyone who questions anything you write, even the obvious questions >>>posed by Christophe that you fail to understand, then don't worry I >>>won't bother to reply in future. >>> >>>Thanks. >>> >> >>Ok, I searched for "Jouni" and found what you're talking about, but you left out >>a ":" when you quoted the name of the thread so my search didn't turn up >>anything. > > >Wouldn't matter what thread I quoted. A simple search by author >would give you all posts you had made. > > >>First of all, in that thread, I was responding to a comment that Fernando made, >>not anything that Jouni said. > >You posted in a thread about crafty beating F6 at nunn 1 in blitz. >You never questioned the time controls as you did in this thread. >The difference Crafty was alledged to have won in the other thread. >It lost in this one. You're still trying to ignore that I was responding to Fernando's post, and not to Jouni's, I don't see that bothering anyone else. > >>Second, I didn't take back anything. > >Who asked you to take back. A simply asking the same question in the >other thread was apt. > >>Third, Christophe was not being clear what he was asking "why" about. > >The question he asked is simple enough. You said these blitz times were >too fast and that they are too fast to judge the strength of a program. >He asked, why and can you explain. Since you had made these statements >you must have evidence that these statements are correct. >Seems simple to me. No, _you're_ asking that question, Christophe didn't, he wasn't clear what he was asking about. Blitz games don't allow a program to search deep enough, that's obvious enough that the question does not need to be asked. > > >>And Forth, if you don't care for the way I respond to a post, then >>don't read my posts, > >I won't in future, thanks for the tip. > >>I'm not likely to change just to suit you, and I'm not the least >>bit concerned about your replying to anything I post in the future. > >Why would I expect you to be concerned?, still I think I have seen >enough of your posts in the past....I really should know better. > >Thanks. > > >>Pete
This page took 0.01 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.