Author: blass uri
Date: 02:40:56 06/02/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 01, 1998 at 10:23:51, Don Dailey wrote: > >Hi Uri, > >I do not direct this post to you personally but the larger >class of paranoid souls. > >I keep finding myself defending Fritz even though I have no >personal reasons or need to. I think it's because of statements >like these. The working assumption seems to be Fritz MUST >be cheating. > >Why is this the case? Just because Fritz has never been number >1 on the list? Shouldn't the default assumption be to ASSUME that >everyone is playing fair? My default assumption is that companies want to make money and many of them cheat or make a wrong impression in order to sell. I had a reason to believe fritz5 cheated because the same program failed in paris and they did not explain why. I guess it was because of some power books that gave power only to the opponents(this is the case at least for the last game they lost). I admit that fritz5 is stronger than I thought before I bought it (I bought it because this is the only way to use Junior4.6 as a playing program). I saw that chessbase had mistakes also against themselves (they said it is not a good idea to give fritz5 to work hours about a position after the hash tables are full and it is not truth). It is a fact that they have an unfair adventage. I do not know if they want to use it My assumption(about companies who want to make money) is that if someone has an unfair adventage then he(she) wants to use it. Maybe my assumption is wrong but if this is the case it is better that chessbase will care for fair matches even if they lose money from doing their autoplayer public bacause otherwise they do a bad name for themselves. > I defend Fritz because I start with >this assumption. I see all these posts (and not just about Fritz) >that ASSUME everyone is corrupt and will stop at nothing >to seek any possible unfair advantage. > >Perhaps I'm naive, but I believe the whole group is being >especially paranoid about cheating. I have serious doubts >that Fritz has worked out a grand plan to cheat with the >cooperation SSDF. Is that what is believed? > >I get the impression everyone's tiny world was shattered when Fritz >took the number one spot. Isn't it time we GROW up and just >CONSIDER the remote possibility that your favorite program (no >matter which one it is) might not be the top program? > >Several ICCA computer chess events have been marred by the >the same bullshit paranoia, there is always some issue >regarding computers that communicate via modem. Someone >gets the brilliant idea that someone on the other end MUST >BE MAKING THE MOVES. It couldn't possibly be the computer. >Once you believe this, then you see any insignificant act >as supporting evidence. Of course if you already hate the >program, then commone sense just fly's out the window. > >People deserve credit for their hard work. If you >don't have absolute proof of something, ANY accusations show >an incredible lack of class and style. You have cast so much >doubt on this result that you effectively snatch the >satisfaction away from people who JUST MAY deserve to have >it. You are wrong to do this and it's incredibly selfish. > > >- Don > >P.S. Please do not come back with "why's", why did they do > this? Why did they do that? Because the only answer > that will satisfy you is that THEY MUST BE CHEATING
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.