Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:30:37 10/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 09, 2000 at 13:36:22, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >I am going to assume this was the first post in this current war. If it isn't, >what I say may not be valid. It is one of two threads that were running. >In this post, the lead-up seems to involve some confusion about what Bob was >playing against. He said he'd seen lots of games against the Tiger beta, >presumably over a significant period of time, and made an assertion about its >play. Someone responded and told him that the version in question had only been >out a few days. He replied that he'd seen a few games against the handle that >was running against that version, and hadn't noticed anything. >Now we are up to your comments and Bob's replies. You pointed out that Bob had >contradicted himself. I think Bob's reply to that was reasonable, and could >have been predicted from what went previously. He only knows what people tell >him, and who knows what they are telling him. > >The critical part of the post comes next, the part where you made comments about >doubting that he'd played hundreds of games versus Tiger beta, and then made >comments about his noplay list and formula. > >Honestly, how do you evaluate your tone there? Are you asking simple factual >questions, or are you tying in with previous posts where people have given Bob a >hard time about his noplay list and formula? It has nothing to do with previous posts made by others. There are only 4 accounts running Beta Tigers at ICC. Two are/were on Crafties noplay list. >Your first sentence, when you say that you doubt that he's played against the >beta, is fine, although if you are trying to point out a misunderstanding (as >opposed to a lie), you could temporize somehow. You could point out the >inaccuracy of formula notes, the randomness of character of automatic computer >operators, or at least suggest that Bob had been mistaken. He as you originally pointed out had made a statement on it's play. The point I was making were; 1) With the hardware difference, why would he expect to see it's open attacks more than usual. 2) With the number of games he had likely seen being very few, his opinions were not warrented. IE Several...nothing caught my eye. 3) His formula left it hardly likely that he had many game since to match crafty meant a rating at that time of 2850 blitz. 4) He made the direct statement Hundreds. >To me, it seems that you clarify your intent in your next paragraph, where you >bring up the formula and noplay list. It's clear that your intent is hostile, >or at least peeved. You are on Bob's case about something. You are bringing >back memories of people who have written posts in here accusing Bob of >manipulating his formula and his noplay list in order to maximize his rating >and/or to avoid losing consistently against particular accounts. In might bring back memories but give me some credit for self thought. I made those statements and showed his formula to prove that he has not played hundreds of games with Beta Tigers, regardless of version. As you say others have made those statements in the past, others still make them at ICC, check a few computer finger notes you'll see them. >From Bob's point of view this wasn't an innocent pair of comments. You aren't >trying to point out confusion and mistakes, you are impugning Bob's integrity. >That is why you got a hostile response. How so, by posting his exact finger notes and formula. Or by stating that he has not played hundreds of games. And noplays accounts currently running Beta Tiger's. >He was much more blunt and direct than you were, but don't you see why he did >it? Bruce, IMO regardless of your reasons as to why he did it. The fact remains that he issued insult after insult post after post. The post you quote is not deserving in any shape or form of his taunts and jibes in every other post he made thereafter. That is clear. Sarah.
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.