Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 03:25:05 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 05:33:28, Mogens Larsen wrote: >I've already explained several times how I believe information should be >provided and in what manner, eg. games, testsuits and testpositions with the >purpose of exploring strengths and weaknesses. Well analysed games is another >possibility for indepth exploration. Nothing new about that IMO. >Most of the testers posting here did quite okay, but some only contributed with >meaningless babble. The threads are there to be read. Quoting them again is >wasting my time and yours. the only ignorance or better arrogance i see is in your words. the people posting in this forum here, a chess-friends. you included. i would not call them "contributing meaningless babble". this is IMO offending. >If you had actually read the things I've written then it would be obvious that I >don't doubt the strength of the program, nor the validity of the data posted. >However, the amount of peculiar and incorrect conclusions - mainly put forth by >you - is quite staggering. i did not post results about gambit-tiger, nor games. but i can confirm the results other had. i had them too. you did not jump on me. keep your data straight. >Your approach to chess programs reminds me of a child looking at packages under >the tree at Christmas, trying desperately to guess what's beneath the glittery >surface. oh - we have october. companies prepare for the christmas business. you felt the right mood. >Unfortunately, you don't want to unwrap the presents, because it'll >just prove you wrong. But a child doesn't mind being wrong as long as it's a >nice gift. ignorance / arrogance. WE unpacked gambit-tiger. WE played lots of games. Not we are childish. it is childish to critisize people who HAVE the data and post them when you have no other data to correlate with. >The other thing that struck me was the reason behind the 'new paradigm' event. >The psychological explanation for the comparison must be that you feel guilty >about abandoning CS Tal for Tiger ?!?!?!? Psychlogical explanation ? Guilty ? I am guilty because i met christophe and in Paris and found out his program is very strong ? You are a real scientist. Have no idea on which school you bas/found your psychological crap, but i am sure it is somewhere deep in freuds pants. ChessSystemTal was made in the beginning 90ties. Christophes Tiger appeared as very strong in the ending 90ties. I do like to work with any person who has a nice playing chess program. Cstal played nice. tiger always nice. > and desperately wants to ease your conscience >by inventing a nonexistant relationship. ?! you are the scientist with the objective point of view and the 100% right guaranty. if you say so, it must be true. the relationship between tiger and cstal comes through the WAY they play, it comes and can be seen in the games. Both play attractive chess. >I have no problem accepting that there have been some kind of inspiration, but >it isn't sufficient foundation for the exclusive "club" you've started. my categories are mine. my definitions are mine. my clubs are mine. you don`t have to participate into. you can have a different opinion. > Gambit >Tiger, CS Tal and Gandalf are by no means unique. Very interesting? Yes. Unique? >No. Your opinion. i disagree here. >>it seems you have no clue about scientific-methods. >Unfortunately for you, I actually do. The incomplete dataset supports a >hypothesis about strength increase worthy of further empirical investigation, >but not esoteric conclusions like 'paradigm' and 'planning'. then investigate your research. you can only win by investigations, mogens. or maybe better you buy a chessbase product. that would fit much better to you, mogens. no surprises. nothing special. just plein computation without subjective and speculative peaks. imo you are the classical chessbase customer mogens. we call those people here in germany the volkswagen-customers. they dont want to risk anything. they do what the mass does. always both legs on the ground not to lose overview... i am sure the next fritz is the right program for you. objective, straight. the best you can buy. nothing "esoterical", you are on the right side...
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.