Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:11:15 10/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 23, 2000 at 19:26:17, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. > Those programs couldn't tell the difference between a "plan" and a number two washtub. To imply that they "plan" is something so ridiculous as to not even warrant another comment. >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 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.