Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 22:17:41 10/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 23:42:04, Chessfun wrote: > >This will be my last post on this subject, I leave other to decide >where the truth lies. > >Hurrrayyy they all cheer. > >Ok first and foremost Dr. you named 4 players. I posted their >finger note indicating that three were not Beta's but original Tiger's. >You then returned a while later with claims of playing various Guest >accounts, that up to this point you did not know of. Therefore negating >your claim of having _SEEN_ HUNDREDS_ of Beta Tiger games. > This is going to also be my last reply, since you don't read and I get tired of writing. main point here: "I have seen ..." Somehow it seems that you want to define "seen" to be something I don't understand. Here is what _I_ mean, and it is supported by my Webster's... I have "seen". Past tense of "see". By using my own eyes. Now what have I seen with my own eyes: 1. live games, crafty vs beta tiger. On three chess servers. This is chess tiger beta vs the ICC/FICS/chess.net handle "crafty" as in the one I run. 2. I don't watch everything. But for each game crafty plays, it creates a log.nnn file, and for each computer game, the log is saved for my review. I go through _every_ such game. Since I do use my eyes to go over the games, I claim I "saw" each and every one I went over. 3. I watch games on ICC between other crafty clones and various chess programs, including the recent ones with beta tiger. If you log on to ICC you will often catch me observing a crafty game, whether the player is "crafty" or "singacrafty" or any of a dozen other well-known crafty clones playing there. Since I see those games live, I claim I have "seen" them. Counting all of the above cases, I can easily produce over 200 games from the past 14+ days that I have kept. And could possibly produce older ones if I had to go back to backup tapes. You can use any definition of "seen" you want. But not when talking to me. I saw 'em with my own eyes, whether you like it or not. I gave you the names of 4 players that kibitzed beta tiger welcome which was captured in my log files. There are at _least_ a couple of others that simply weren't in my ICC logs, since I don't save everything after I look them over. Now if you can't figure out why I don't like your particular brand of nonsense definitions, I don't see how I can explain it any clearer. You want to make "seen" into some oddball concept that fits your needs. I use "seen" just like everybody else on the planet does. I will _guarantee_ you that if "crafty" on ICC/FICS/chess.net plays a computer, I will _see_ the game and go over it pretty carefully. _every_ game. Like it or not. Those that know me can tell you this is _not_ an exaggeration. You also like to toss out your implied insult that I noplay beta tigers. And that is _still_ poppycock. I don't noplay them, they noplay themselves by not following my very clear and concise finger notes. You don't like my rules, and then you whine when someone violates them and gets zapped for doing so. tough. I don't tell others how to run their programs on ICC. I reserve the same freedom of choice for myself... Otherwise crafty would _never_ get to play a GM, it would be playing computers 24 hours a day. And that is _not_ what I want to see. It is _not_ what I will see. Now I am sure you can redefine a few words and then argue that everything I said is wrong. I think most know what "seen" means, however, and won't be swayed by strange definitions. And since you aren't very psychic, I don't really see how you would know what I have seen and what I haven't. Obviously there have been plenty of beta tiger vs crafty/crafty-clone games. Exactly how would you know what I have seen and what I didn't? It is tough to argue from that side of the fence. How many hours do _you_ spend on ICC each night? I'll be happy to tell you how many I spend logged on to all three servers simultaneously if you want. As I sometimes get to watch 2-3 games at the _same_ time. To say your arguments don't impress me very much is an understatement. I know what I do. You can barely speculate about it. If you can't figure out that one hundred is one "hundred" and that two hundred is plural for "hundred" (hint: add an s) then your comment that 200 is _not_ hundreds is pretty funny. Another bad definition. plural means > 2? > 5? Exactly how many before it is plural? I was taught > 1. So hundreds it is. Feel free to think what you want. But if you want to write it in public, be sure your data is correct. Or else be prepared to get the same sort of response as that which is made by your incorrect data. I don't like being called a liar. I do my best to get my data right. I certainly don't 'speculate' about what someone else is doing. You might consider that for yourself...
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.