Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 04:30:31 10/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2000 at 06:25:05, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. No, but you did post meaningless and unsubstantiated conclusions. And you continue to do so. >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 problem isn't the quality of the data, but the interpretation as I've mentioned before. The strength of the program is obvious, but you're making more than speculative conclusions on the impact and meaning of the speculative approach undertaken by Gambit Tiger. The data is insignificant if used incorrectly. >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. The psychological angle seem rather obvious. Especially as it started out when you claimed that CT was running with the torch lit originally by CW. Then it got reduced to using some of the ideas proposed by CW. Now we're down to programs with a nice chess playing style. You've failed to extract anything but superficial features of the programs you compare. No science to be found. >?! 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. Programs playing nice and attractive chess in your opinion. That's a nice restricted definition. Why not just state that Gambit and CS Tal plays attractive chess instead of trying to establish a nonexisting paradigm? Or is nice and attractive program just another term for 'someone nice enough to give me a free program'? Receiving a free program doesn't mean selling your soul or abolishing any attempts at objectivity. You did it with CS Tal and now Gambit Tiger. Do you see a pattern? >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. I must have missed the post where you decided to found a club based solely on your opinions. It came across as an obvious conclusion supported by something resembling evidence. Silly me ;o). >Your opinion. i disagree here. It's not a matter of opinion. They're not unique. You need a bigger club. >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... You're missing the point, again. The empirical approach will most likely prove that Gambit Tiger or RT2 is the strongest available program. The problem is your inability to substantiate your conclusions by anything other than belief. Religion has nothing to do in computer chess, though a prophet with the name of Czub would be a first. The logic you apply is called "Erasmus Montanus"-logic in Denmark, because of the play "Erasmus Montanus" by Ludvig Holberg (1684-1754). It basically goes like this: "You can't fly, a stone can't fly. Ergo you are a stone." Mogens.
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.