Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 11:02:06 04/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>Pah - he can put his ChessBorg autoplayer games into a trash and >>post them there. >>There they can produce WAVES. >>Who believes in games or statistics a big chess company has manipulated >>by its own ? > >Fascinating mental process. First and based on your keen nose you >believe a company is cheating. Based on my own data (not on my nose) I claim that the results of a special autoplayer produced by ChessBase cannot work. Call it cheating or whatever. The device fullfills the idea it was created for :-) > Then you reject any data from any source >but you. Wrong again. I reject data that was produces WITH THIS DEVICE ! This is a normal procedure because when I have found that there is something wrong I do not trust the data from the device that I suspect to be wrong. Please tell me what is wrong with this scientific method. If you have the suspicion you car is "wrong" you will not begin a long journey with it from germany to spain, or ? You will sent it into a garage and let them check it. Until it is checked, you will not drive with it. I will not accept the data of these ChessBase autoplayers until I have found out how they manipulate. There is no reason to change the autoplayer. The chrilly donninger autoplayer was a good device and anybody used it. It was implemented in dos and in windows programs. And it runs perfectly well. If a company invents an own device that suddenly generated unbelievably results I WILL NOT TRUST this wonder with blind eyes. I think my behaviour is really absolute normal. Your comments on my normal reaction shows me that I am right. >Finally you don't provide any. Reason: data is materialistic, >you favor emotional experimentalism, also called sentimental algebra. I do only provide data when it is significant. You oversee this willingly . You want to oversee that I said: I do publish it when I have significant data. You cheat with words Enrique. You make a farce out of a normal behaviour, that somebody is not trusting data from another source when he has contradicting data himself. >With such great grounds for dialog it's a small wonder your increasing >resource to name calling. You establish all the conditions for a >monologue, rather violent by the way. Not very interesting, is it. If your dialog is only CALLING results in a table, than your dialog is not worth much. If you reduce a discussion to : SHOW ME YOUR RESULTS OR I DON'T BELIEVE YOU, the discussion is reduced by you not by me. >>Mr Malboro says smoking is not dangerous ?! :-) > >Too cryptic for my materialistic mind. Could you try to expand in a way >someone other than your solipsistic self can understand? Not that I >really give a damn, but out of curiosity... No - I will not explain this analogy. It is too obvious to explain it. (I give a hint: chess base = malboro.) > >Enrique
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.