Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 16:09:53 04/19/01
>>I agree with you (Jonas), and I don't think he was speaking respectfully or with
>>any implication of credibility. But his charges were so great in my opinion,
>>that I would have prefered if you would have given definate reasurance that he
>>was wrong in his facts, or, that he should at least substantiate it, so I/we
>>would be able to end our suspense in waiting to see if the new Tigers are all
>>that great or not.
>>(dont remember who wrote this)
>If I scream something silly loudly enough, maybe that should get attention too.
>
>Look at the FICS and ICC ratings of engines running those programs and also the
>head to head matchups. On Cadaques, it was an 8/12 split between Shredder and
>Tiger. The same sort of well expected ratio is what is observed in all the well
>run contests, internet bouts, etc.
>
>It's a troll. And a very effective one. I think this one has to win the troll
>of the month award. The design was to get a sharp reaction. It achieved its
>design goal admirably. A fairly harmless troll, since it was obvious.
>
>Writing a good troll is not as simple as it seems. For instance, if I scream:
>"I can beat Shredder playing blindfolded at blitz 40:0"
>It is too obvious that I am just making noise. Now, this one ('Shredder beats
>Tiger evertime!') was close to being too obvious, but not so blatant that it
>could not be *mistaken* for a sincere belief.
>
>And if it is too tame like this:
>"Amateur program X might be better than professional program Y"
>
>Then it won't get people hot under the collar and make them yell and jump up and
>down.
>
>A good troll also has to make a good punching bag. For instance, If I say, "I
>can *prove* that pi is *exactly* 22/7 and that the number published for pi is an
>incorrect approximation." and post it to sci.math with a few incoherent scrawls
>then that might make a good troll. It is credible that someone could be so
>boneheaded as to think that pi is a rational number. And it is easy to
>disprove. Of course, on a forum like CCC, you lose the best troll weapon -- the
>crosspost to opposing groups.
>
>"From: Joe Troller
>Org: Carnivores R Us
>Date: April 1, 2002
>Newgroup: rec.hunting.dogs, alt.animals.cat, rec.pets.cats, rec.pets.dogs
>Subj: "Care and feeding of a cougar hunting dog"
>
>I recently bought a large hunting dog for chasing cougars up trees. I figure
>that to catch cougars, I should feed my dog cats. Now, I think that Siamese
>cats look the most like cougars, but my friend Billy-Bob says that Siamese cats
>is too expensive and i ought to use plain old tabbys.
>
>Also, do cats have the vitamins needed for my dog to keep a healty cote.
>
>PS -- He's a Lab/Grate Dane mix, if that matters"
>
>Note the crosspost to groups where offense is sure to happen. Also, the innane
>idiocy -- it is so punchable and annoying that many simply would not be able to
>hold back from responding.
>
>
>A good troll like this one shows foresight and skillful preparation. Not that
>they are a great idea. But this one was well executed, at least.
>(written by dan corbit)
Or maby he was a less than clever guy, who had seen shredder beat tiger for two
games in a row, got dissapointed and cried on the shoulder of ccc, just to get
yelled at, called an inane less than smart troll, who sits in his science lab
and constructs posts like these LOL.
This was a response to some guy posting with the header "shredder beats tiger
everytime" and dan's troll theory just cracked me up :-)
Regards
Jonas
Ps: No offence Dan :-)
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.