Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:28:08 04/28/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 1998 at 03:14:17, Dirk Frickenschmidt wrote: >Hi Thorsten, > >instead of attacking you could spend a thought on the question if you >aren't rather in a position to admit that you have made a lot of false >allegations and raised a lot of wrong suspicion concerning Fritz5, >namely Wrong ! I don't have to admit anything. >a) the Fritz5 autoplayer: >As Enrique and Ed have checked now, it is working just as correct as was >my first impression and as I already told you. I don't know what "Enrique and Ed have checked". My own results show that Fritz plays NOT that strong as whatever Enrique has. I have other people confirming this. Since they are in no way related with me and have OWN machines and interests, I believe in what I said. Fritz is weaker than enriques or ssdf-results suggest. It is a special engine playing good against Rebel+hiarcs+genius. But playing weak against amateur programs (that will not be tested in ssdf :-))) and other not ssdf-leading programs. >b) the Fritz5 powerbook: >neither you nor *anyone* has shown *any* evidence concerning *any* form >of outbooking within this book. Dirk. If you would have understood the idea Kaare Danielsen once explained very clearly, and I have also mentioned here, that the problem is not the games Fritz IS playing but the ones fritz is NOT playing - you would see that I cannot show evidence about which games Fritz is NOT playing since this is not possible. I see which games fritz plays. These games are also in MY powerbook. But why is fritz NOT PLAYING other games I have in my book and when I do play them fritz loses, but not the ssdf-fritz. How shall I show evidence for games the ssdf-fritz is NOT playing ???? Instead of rethorics Dirk you should consider a minute about this... maybe it helps. Kaare said completely right: Here are some comments to the current discussion: "1. The fact that some programmers put long opening lines into the library is only half the problem. The other half is that some programmers test their programs against the top opponents, and systematically REMOVE all opening lines where their program is losing to one of the top opponents. The effect of this can be even more dramatic than adding a few killer- lines to the opening library, and there is no way to detect it from looking at the opening library, because you do not know what has been removed. This problem is not new, some programmers have used autoplayers and removed openinglines systematically for more than 10 years. 2. My own chess programs have always included a fairly large random generator in the evaluation function. The main reason for this is to aviod that the human users gets bored with the program because it plays the same moves every time, but it is also a very good protection against killer-lines in the opening library. This is in my opinion the only way you can protect your program against prepared opening lines. Kaare Danielsen" I subscribe to this statement. >Your *much* too agressive anti-Fritz postings are more and more lacking >any substance, and I regard your answer to Thoralf as unacceptable in >tone and content. And why ? You can have as much ideas about my comments as you like Dirk. I appreciate you thinking and having own ideas ! Otherwise talking with you would be boring, wouldn't it ? >If you want to critisize, you simply have to use the same rational >arguments as everyone else has to use, Very nice that you want to explain me WHAT i have to write and HOW. Please accept that it is me deciding WHAT i write and HOW I am doing it and NOT you ! Thanks. > and you are *not* an exception to >common rules and are *not* justified to just spread emotional nonsense >as you did recently. I do not spread - as you say - emotional nonsense. When somebody is spreading NONSENSE, although not emotional, but very funny nonsense due to the naive way, than it is Thoralfs comments you get each ssdf-list. I always criticized when people knew about results even before having tested the programs. They knew hiarcs was weaker, so they never tried hiarcs on a machine as fast. Not MY critics is nonsense. Their comments were nonsense. When they throw out the Schaetzle + Bsteh Turbokit because it is NON-commercially available, but is always was available, they get MY comments about their stupid alibi-comments. When they make special exceptions to the Chessbase team, and even allow them to use a secret autoplayer without having asked the other programmers about this, they get my comments. If you don't like the emotion in my comments, just don't read them. I don't like to be polite when the circumstances do not fit to politeness. > I'm really getting tired of reading this kind of >stuff you write nowadays. As I said : you don't have to read it. Skip my posts. >And, frankly, it is quite disappointing for me to see that kind of bad >style from someone I respect and regard as a friend, and from whom I >have seen many well-reasoned postings on computer-chess in the past. Thats life Dirk. Without disapointments you would not be positively surprised about other people. Ups and downs. Pretty normal. >Please return to polite and rational reasoning as soon as possible!! I don't see a reason to do so. The scandal is not my behaviour but the latest Computer Schach and Spiele and the very low level of cheap boulevard-"journalism" atlatus-people like Liebert (a second Pfarrer Hintze doing the dirty job for Kohl=Friedel?) are doing in the name of computerchess. But - and I am sure - this will have consequences. We will no longer accept this monopol doing what they want. We get rid of people manipulating and brainwash the people with lies and weak "journalism" and this stands for Kohl / Friedel in ONE word. Bluehende Landschaften and claims alike of: we don't censor authors or we don't censor advertising is nice, but stays a lie. CSS ows Ossi Weiner a public apology due to the very mean article: A question of honor. I am no friend of Ossi Weiner. But this article is the most mean things I have ever read in this magazin and I will not allow them (CSS AND CHESSBASE) to continue this style and way IN PUBLIC. If they want advertising they shall sign it as advertising. But this way of "presenting" news is not allowed. As I said: it's enough. Enough of ChessBase, enough of CSS, and enough of stupid naive comments from ssdf-guys. I don't know how long CSS exists. Maybe as long as Kohl is cancelor. I am sure this time of these dinosaurs is over. They will die. I am sure you will not understand or don't like my image. But this is not important. > > >Kind regards from Dirk I will not accept you trying to defend a company (ChessBorg), a magazine and a way of presenting news that brainwashes the people for commercial interests any longer. As I said - I am sure Ossi Weiner is not my best friend. I am fighting against him misusing truth too. But this goes to far. When pigs throw mud towards them, in the end the reader has to clean it up. I don't like their behaviour. But obviously you underestimate ChessBorg if you believe that OSSI is the agressor alone. The most aggression comes from a magazine writing nice articles full of bullshit and calling it journalism when it is pure ADVERTISING campaign for ChessBorg. This is aggression. News and Advertising have to be differenciated. If publisher and owner is the same, this does not work - as we have seen the last 15 years.
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.