Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:01:03 11/29/97
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 1997 at 18:39:29, Detlef Pordzik wrote: Dear Mr.Pordzik, because Chris Whittington seems to be in Hawaii in the moment, he left Britain for some unknown reasons. I have heard he will try to change the job and work as a PERLENFISCHER, but maybe this was just a rumour... whatever, I have to answer you. >This is dedicated towards the gentlemen C.Whittington + T.Czub, who >often >post here. Dedicated. Unbelievable. > >So, I hope, I can get reasonable answers to provide serious >dissappointments or upcoming anger. Nananana ! > >Of course, this is not to be understood as an insult, but as a problem >of a user with the / their product. No ? Aha. > >So, on the main advertising page of CS Tal there is an announcement, >that the program supports " all known PC boards ". > >" Well " - I thought, " that's a supposal " - because I read in the >chess related NG's absolute opposite statements. > >To my big surprize I saw CS Tal yesterday at a mass market store - >and to my even bigger surprise, a very clear + correct translation in >German, what was originally written in the homepage of Oxfords - >on the back of the box : >"...unterstützt alle, an den PC anschliessbaren PC Bretter...." - well, >this is no suggestion, no eventuality, but a clear described feature on >a sealed box - I can / must / and have the legal right to rely on this. > >To make it short : I found no such possibility - if, it must really be >hidden good ! When I translated the text, and when I worked in the Schach Niggemann company, I was a witness and able to test all 3 boards. But thats a few years back. In the same time Chris programmers had the choice to put some bugs into the code - or to rem it out, or to throw the code out of the sources, so : Whatever worked in the past, I cannot tell you about the status of the current comercial version. But I have myself connected it to the SAITEK and c232-board. Concerning your TASC-board I can only tell you that TASC (!!!) send Oxford- Softworks a board and made some negotiations to get it ready. I don't know if or why it failed. I can only guess that it once worked or that TASC was unable to get it ready. Whatever. It is years ago and you have to wait until the boss (Chris) comes back from his holiday - (if this is a holiday, maybe he stays there to be a PERLENFISCHER) ad clears the problem. Asking somebody in the company is no good idea. The programmers there do program many programs, and they do even more. If you ask 3 people, you get 3 asnwers. This is in any company. Try it with calling the Mephisto - Hotline, and if you ask 3 people, you will get 3 different answers. WHY ? Because the companies try not to invest much money, therefore they pay not much. As a result their workers don't know much about what they do. This is in britain and in germany completely the same way and the reason is the same: the boss driver ROVER or Mercedes, the worker drives VW. If you want to get SERVICE, you have to wait until the boss drives VW and the worker Mercedes... :-) >But, before setting up complaining postings - I invested quite some >money + phoned Oxford this afternoon. - A friendly gent gave me an >advice to use an undocumented command line at he prompt : chess_/? >Well, this showed some commands., like "vesa" - "nohash" (??)- "autot" >"saitek" ( ha ?? ) and some more. >Result : none. >So, where + how can I get my TASC board II working please, sirs ? I have no idea. Maybe the code is not working, or TASC did never send a driver-device (TASC writes the devices, not the chess-program-company). > >Next : >I owe a PC with 128 Megs of RAM, under normal DOS 6.2 configuration, R9 >for instance, grabs 60 Megs. >CS Tal announces proudly having detected 32 Megs (?!?) - available 17, >useable for hash ( not pawn hash ) 8 ( e i g h t ) Megs used in total. CSTal does not need much hash. What do you want with all the hash ? This is not FRITZ5, this is an intelligent program. It takes lots of time until 17+8 MB hash are filled if you only do 4000 NPS. > >I downloaded the so called " paris.zip " from the homepage, where Mr. >Whittington writes in a 2 k text file, that the new chess.exe should be >used after renaming the old one. This now would solve several problems : >some kind of draw error - sawn in Paris and : " .....able to use >m o r e hash tables..." >very good - how + where can I get proof of this ?? >Because : >the GUI, concerning the hash setings ( of course ) isn't corrected - >still detects -silly enough - 32 Megs etc..... I guess NOBODY in britain has a machine that has more than 64 MB RAM. Only a few fools in germany (Moritz Berger and you), who think they need hash because they have owned Fritz5 (hehehe!:-) need more than 64 MB ram. I really believe nobody in chris company has more than 64 MB. WHY ?? There is absolutely no reason to have more RAM. If you want to get a CSTal that recognizes more RAM you have to wait until the OXFORD-COMPANY buys themselves new RAM. >I even tried the " x " mode to give the program each + every possible >choice - NOTHING changed, of course - exept one detail : >the supposed European ELO suggestion ( 107 % of P -Pro 200 ) before >stated as 2.442 ELO + now, after implementing the new .exe, detects a >possibility of.......2.443 ELO......an improvment...... Right. We don't need X-mode. We have the Tal-function. Thats enough. >Allright - >I again phoned Oxford, the gent still reacted friendly + kinda helpless, >because of his doc-advice not working. But he asked "....somebody, >working >on the Windows version of the product. This one told him - please NOT to >give CS Tal more hash - it would DECREASE the strenght of the >program..." ( THIS is really a hit for an answer for me ) !!!! :-) You have to reconsider that they are not the mass-market fast-stupid-search-company. They all work in chris' slow-knowledge paradigm. Therefore they are all brainwashed to think into Chris' major believes. More hash makes the engine weaker. Thats absolutely correct ! In early years even Dirk Frickenschmidt reduced the hash-tables in Fritz3 into 256 or 64 to blitz accurate. Because the /x-mode Fitz3 is blitzing weaker ! >Orininal tone. >So, gentlemen : how much hash can I use with your " paris.exe " - where >can I do the changes concerning this ?? >I suppose - ONLY in the .ini - but I won't touch this without advice. > Paris engine automatically takes MORE RAM. But - as you have >64, and the if-clause only is programmed to differenciate between 16 MB and 32 MB, I guess you are falling out of the IF-clause. :-) >To ask it as friendly as possible : >how come, that a RELEASE version promises things, that simply are not >held, i.e. are not available ? :-) I would say - ask Chris ! He is the boss. Whenever I fax/phone them a BUG, they smile and don't fix it. Why should they fix it later ? >-This is just the same as anouncing a database of 400.000 games included >+ nothing in at all.....- >how come, a product of 1997, after so many years of hard work - as I >suggest - comes out with such irritating, poor possibilities to detect >correct the amount of available hash ? Again - we don't need hash ! Hash is for the fast-food programs that count on search. We need a little hash. Not much at all. The hard work was mainly done on fixing the same bugs thrice, and maybe they are still in the sources. > >To make it clear : >after this clear cheating of CM 5.000, announcing nearly the same - I >reacted quite upset - and I'm not willing to spend my money on a program >that allready offers me lies on the coverage. Maybe you should ask TASC. I think the correlation could have something to do with TASC. Maybe Tasc always sends their boards for free to the companies, negotiates for drivers, and don't produce them in the end. >Beside this - this affects German law ( unlauterer Wettbewerb, BGB ). Ich wuerde dir also raten die Firma Oxford-Softorks zu verklagen. Oder TASC. >But - I want to support the increase of this new idea.... Which new idea ? I don't understand the context, sorry. >+ so I ask for a quick solution, please. > I don't think that you will get ANY quick solution ! :-) >Kind regards > >ELVIS >elvis@owl-online.de Don't take it to serious. I could name you bugs in other programs too. And these programs costs even more money. :-) I think in the end the TASC - boards will die. Not only because of PATENTRECHTLICHE questions, but also because not enough programs do really support the board. It looks like, in the moment.
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.