Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:31:56 04/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
> Still I cannot understand why it >should be a task for SSDF to secure that the economical conditions for >chess programming are equal. As far as I can see they are probably >rather unequal, even if all autoplayers were public. This is indeed a BRILLIANT (:-))) statement ! When - as a result of your behaviour, the auto232 will not anymore supported by programmers who don't like to see ChessBase have an unfair advantage against them, - what will you say than ? You are really funny ! You and ChessBase are in charge for what is happening and you behave like Pontius Pilatus ! >You said in an email that it would have been OK for you if SSDF had >played the Fritz 5-games manually. But assuming that there is no >cheating, why would it be better if SSDF used an extremely slow (and by >the way practically speaking impossible) way of confirming the rating of >Fritz 5? The rating would still be the same apart from statistical >variations. Really ? The rating would be the same ? Another of your famous consumptions ? I remember that you said we don't have to test this program on fast machine because it is no strong program ! Please gimme more of those FAMOUS statements. You know a priori that x is a bad chessprogram and therefore you don't have to proof this !!! >The original reason for the SSDF rating list was to give the consumers >information about the relative strengths of chess computers/programs. A >buyer of Fritz 5 wants, among other things, to know how good it plays >against other computers. I don't think that they care if the production >costs has been somewhat higher or lower. It would be better you would stop answering Thoralf. Your comments are a shame !! I will NOT explain you WHY your above statement is a shame. You have to find out yourself. I doubt that you find out yourself. Ask somebody else. I would advise to ask Cock or Don or Bob. >>Furthermore I regret the silence of the SSDF very much. 4 main chess >>programmers have complained. The complaints are from end of February. >>Now we are 2 months further. No official answer, just silence, silence >>and silence. > >Some of the firsts complaints came from Ossi Weiner in a group email, >which I responded. He didn't react on my answers but instead sent >several new emails with fierce attacks on the SSDF rating list. Many >other persons on CCC and in the group emails answered Weiners letters, >so in my opinion it wasn't so urgent to answer them. Another famous statement. You were asked by 4 programmers who supported ssdf in the past and THIS is your reaction. Thoralf, give up understanding people. >I could have defended the SSDF rating list better, OK. But your >description of the complete silence from SSDF isn't correct. You have damaged your own life-work. I am sure it will not heal from this damage. It's over. It is a list ad absurdum. You can count beans instead. Would make more sense. >I'm sorry if you feel ignored. How do you think I feel? Arrogant and ignorant ! And obviously unable to react in a proper way. I don't feel sorry for you. You have made your own problem by your reactions.. > >Thoralf Karlsson
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.