Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:45:00 10/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 11:25:40, Chessfun wrote: >On October 07, 2000 at 08:39:59, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 06, 2000 at 14:21:14, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On October 06, 2000 at 10:34:32, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>> >>>>You can also submit some phrases of the other sides in the discussion -- and >>>>please understand that the accusions in the lie and falsification of the >results are the worst you can say to the academitian. >>> >>> >>>Please check carefully as I think you will find they were either in reply, >>>or identical cut and paste's of the Dr's own remarks to me. >>> >>>Sarah. >> >> >>Yep... but you overlook _your_ statements. You accused me of making up >>numbers, etc. The only mistake I made was confusing gambit tiger with >>beta tiger. Which I quickly discovered and admitted. But you hardly >>stopped there, did you? > > >I didn't accuse you of anything. I stated _fact_. >"I have played" Hundreds....... >Which turned into "several"... No it didn't. I was incorrect about playing gambit tiger. I was _not_ incorrect about playing beta tiger, as you claimied I was. I gave you some players with a total game count of > 100, each of which was claiming to be "beta tiger" (I even supplied names for the ones in my logs, which only go back a few days.) My hundreds did not change at all. Except that I didn't play many vs gambit tiger, which was definitely a misunderstanding on my part. But let's keep going. I explained why some don't kibitz. and why some don't expose their interface. You said "that can't be done AFAIK". That was wrong. I don't particularly like being called "wrong" when I am not. I made a statement about playing hundreds of games vs beta tiger. 200 would be enough to make that correct. I had records for over 100 for absolute certain, and those were over a short time-period. You offered _no_ proof of any kind to refute my statement. yet you want to maintain it is wrong. And then you take issue when I zing you for making such statements. Grow up. If you have proof of something, offer it. Otherwise simply but out. I originally said that beating GM Mecking was no big deal. I stand by that 100%. As would anybody else that visits ICC for any length of time. I said that gambit tiger didn't seem to be attacking "me" at all. I was generally wrong there as it was the normal beta tiger. However, after a few games by albert, I didn't see any attacks at all. You can ask him for details. I don't pop off about games I know nothing about. I _watch_ them. _you_ don't. You talk about "all the gambit tiger operators" and call those "gambit tiger". When I mention watching singacrafty playing a beta tiger, you go "haha... that isn't crafty" or some such. Very consistent. Now, offer 'facts' or 'silence'. I will be happy with either. But not statements made in ignorance, or speculation, or "AFAIK" which doesn't impress me one little bit. >which turned into "pretty close to reality"... >which turned into "all the others that are running Crafty as well"... Didn't turn into _anything_. I _clearly_ said "I have watched crafty play ..." Do you dispute that singacrafty is crafty? that "data" is crafty? If so, which one specific tiger beta account do you call "tiger beta"? Aha. All of them? > >As for your confusion, you never at any point said >"Oh I am *wrong* I made a *mistake*" or any such statement. Yes I did and if you look back you will find it. I clearly said that I had assumed that "gambit tiger" was a nickname for beta tiger, and that they were one in the same. Until Christophe pointed out it was newer than the time-frame I mentioned. If you walk thru the thread, you will see that I have admitted this on _multiple_ occasions. So much for your giving "facts". > >And regardless of my statements, you simply cannot stand an opposite >or conflicting opinion without resorting to personal insults. > >Sarah. Right. I simply don't like being called a liar, by someone that is ignorant of important details.
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.