Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 05:53:38 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 08:13:33, Mogens Larsen wrote: >Well, there was. Several posters chit-chatting about the excellence of the Rebel >11 package. it IS excellent. > As long as it's not Chessbase products then it's okay, right? Maybe >CW failed to give you enough detailed advise. as long as it IS much chess program for less money, it IS good. i don't understand what another one of your famous "mogens gossip claims without any evidence" shall tell me. chris has nothing against chessbase, as far as i know. i think he even likes frederic. so your comments is as usual. misinformed hear-said. why don't you do a new computerchess-magazin. Since you never come with computerchess-topics or data yourself, you could write about the private stories of the programmers or people in the scene. maybe: "the very top secret and intimate home stories of computerchess programmers" that would be a title that fits very well to your very "scientific" "The Almighty Forum Dedicated to Anything" where you sit the whole day and talk about peoples sex live and many other levelless things that show us why it is so difficult for you to talk in a computerchess-thread with the name "Re: Junior6a - Gambit-Tiger, PGN's" about computerchess. maybe you can collect all your best cynical statements and come with them in a book with the title: "while i am uncapable of doing computerchess at all, i am very capable of spitting out in scholastic-self- promoting comments". i am sure i would buy one edition to put it under my loudspeaker. the one on the left needs a little different angle i think. >How is it that I'm supposed to produce evidence that an unsupported statement is >untrue? maybe you look to the title of the thread where i posted a few of my autoplayer-results against junior. do you have ANY data that shows that tiger is weaker than i do say ? feel free to post. >That's not the way it works. When you argue that it's a well known fact >without producing evidence to support it, then I'm not the one with the problem. so what is your point ? these games against junior where GT gets 50% are the weakest result it gets. beta testers have posted enough data that shows that GT is the strongest in the moment. where is YOUR data that contradicts this ? i am waiting. >The author of the statement provides the proof. Rather obvious to most I >imagine. imagination. that is all you can. i wonder if you have at least 2 machines to autoplay. do you have ? or is this also YOUR way of doing computerchess ? >Yes, your "facts" is indeed nothing but hype. Why did you include old GT games? >Didn't the facts match your own version of reality? the old games show the same % the new games show. nothing has changed. i do present the games because they have been played. at least, i do present data. none do you. >And inventing your own facts as you go along is? i do show games. examples. data. where is yours ? you have none. in your "The Almighty Forum Dedicated to Anything" this will work well, but not in a computerchess-group. here it is to talk about computerchess, not about your philosophical hear-said. >At least they don't refer to imaginary games or mix different versions to >support their own conclusions. what is the problem with playing with different gt versions ? is 0.95 showing different results than 1.0 against junior ? no. so what is your point ? you have none. thats indeed a problem. you like this. you like to jump on people (as you have done with the beta-testers) without having anything than negative-mood. ok for me, if you do it in "The Almighty Forum Dedicated to Anything" but here you must prove your statements. and this is what you fail to do.
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.