Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 16:26:17 10/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2000 at 17:49:25, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On October 23, 2000 at 17:17:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I know that CST is "lonely" but why group others with it, and say that they >>are based on common ideas? That is one giant stretch for computer chess. let us wait a few weeks - that you can test it too. and others have tested it too. so that we can discuss again on the base of data we all can prove... the beta testers of the rebel team posted results in this forum and got attacked here, mainly from a guy called mogens... they were attacked because - as he said - their euphorical reaction was not based on FACTS and not based on objective-judgement. now this thing won both championships very convincingly. i am sure you will find ways to oversee objective FACTS and judgement in the future, if this helps you to prove your point of view. its easy: you only have to wait until people forget how you attacked a bunch of people who HAD that thing, because you had NO data, and only hear-said, but you know it better than these people. thats something very interesting. That OBJECTIVE and rational people, who found their judgemant on FACTS, do have more insights in something they never tested, than 21 other people who tested it for weeks on autoplayers against all kind of programs. and then jump on those people in an open forum and talking about propaganda and subjective-meanings, campaigns and all the mud you throw... when in the end you had nothing than an opinion. no single data that was NOT posted by somebody else. or hear said. you have not seen a single main-line, nor a score live, and you felt yourself that kind of confident to jump on honest and normal people. I would call this a mastepiece of arrogance. a kind of mega-outing. >One small leap for Thorsten, one giant stretch for mankind :o)). i am sure you will find ways to make the people forget about your attempt to throw mud on unguilty people, just because you did not like the facts these people presented. its not up to you to decide what is fact and what is fantasy, what is objective and what is subjective. If i have nothing, i would close my mouth, be silent and study in my room, what others have to present. i would silently replay their games. and when the programs comes out of the market, i would prove them wrong. and THEN open my mouth. you did it other way arround. very fine. its your decision. but don't speculate that this will be forgotten too soon. >Mogens. gandalf plans. cstal plans. and gambit-tiger plans. all 3 mate-attacks. wait and see. but don't try again to throw mud on people only because you don't like the facts they present. this is IMO a contraditiction to your own claims and efforts concerning FACTS, objectiveness and "based on the ground of data" - phrases.
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.