Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Odyssey2001-tournament: round 10 over, pairings round 11, games

Author: Mogens Larsen

Date: 08:41:15 12/09/01

Go up one level in this thread


On December 09, 2001 at 10:32:20, Thorsten Czub wrote:

>any human beeing has prejudices. only you don't tell them in public.
>nobody can live and judge anything without having prejudices. only
>god has no prejudices.

Well, there you go. QED.

>the fact that you talk about games you haven't seen.

No, I haven't mentioned a single game. It's the lack of games that makes your
opinions less than credible.

>when my methods are wrong, why was i succesful in finding out that hiarcs would
>be world chess champion BEFORE the championship was played out.
>when it is wrong, why was i able to see that chess tiger is very very strong,
>without even the programmer (christophe) knowing and believing it.
>when my method is wrong, how can i see in forward that century is very strong,
>and century makes 2nd rank, and how can i find out about cstal ?
>and about nimzo?

You've just mentioned five programs, which constitutes a significant percentage
of commercial programs available. And the predictions aren't that good. If I
were to select five programs that turned out to be strong and call it intuition,
I would be a fool because it isn't really an accomplishment.

>all i see is that you claim that you do not replay games, hear about strength
>from hearsaid, and call other methods lousy. when in fact you don't know about
>the programs.

Correct, I know virtually nothing about Zarkov. But that's irrelevant. You made
a flawed assessment on nothing. That's the point.

>instead of finding out yourself by researching, you call other people idiots and
>their methods wrong.

When? I haven't called anyone an idiot recently and there is no method in your
case, which is the problem.

>of course it is nonsense to test version x versus version x+1. this does not
>lead you to a better chessprogram.

That's only partially correct.

>instead of showing your incompetence in evaluating chess programs you should
>better do something senseful.

I'm probably incompetent in evaluating chess programs, but that's not the topic.
Your little crystal ball is.

Regards,
Mogens



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.