Author: Marc van Hal
Date: 13:00:33 12/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 2001 at 13:48:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On December 16, 2001 at 11:23:50, Matthew williams wrote: > >See how some GMs at world champs qualification completely >annihilated fritz6 during the 8 round qualifying. > >Some people will never learn that a machine is having a certain >kind of problems with certain positions. Others forget that >program A doesn't play like program B. In this respect playing Tiger >is easy for me as i know some things it does do wrong. Much >easier than Fritz or crafty, whereas from pure positional viewpoint >Fritz and crafty are both a joke. > >Note that i also have beaten a chessprogram blindfolded while i >was eating!! > >this was at the world champs 2000 where during dinner i played >against a french program. > >AND IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT LIKE YOU BELIEVE SHIT PROBABLY, >ASK THE WITNESSES. > >If i'm right at least Franck Zibi was a witness of this, besides the >programmer of the thing. > >>Hi Vincent >>I have noticed during the short time I have been here you like to call people >>stupid, and you also like to brag, about your chess prowness in beating Chess >>Computers. I think in one post you said you beat tiger 5 out of Six times, well >>to me this is pretty amazing since i have not seen even grandmasters do this. >>Would you care to demonstrate to the CCC public exactly how this is done?? >>Please don't ask for money, since obviously you play computers at icc for free, >>if we can take your so-called results at CCC at face value. I think it is even more easy to find a anti Diepeveen style then to find a anti computer style But to win from a chessprogram you don't have to be a genius Just look at the games of ssdf choose won lost and you already know how to beat that program The so caled anti computer game from Kramnik against Junior 6 Dortmund by the hand was one of my anelyses (,so if this was the reason you tried to defend Kramnik you now know that you don't have to.) And that is included the remarks. Which you also could have find out if they did not delete and blocked my postings Talking about my anelyses you once even had the guts to say that my anelyses suck (Mostlikely only because I gave one wrong move in the Kh1 variation of the Queens gambit exepted where I did give a5 as folow up but if you had looked more carefuly to my posting you see that I already posted Bf4 completely And other variation was the variation from the queens gambit exchanged but I had posted the improvement 1 day later kind of strange New in chess did not recieve this because I thought I had send this to them too) I only was looking if people paid atention!) which in fact means you say that Kramnik and Kasparov and many more GM's don't know how to play chess (Because they use these anelyses for their games!) It is treu that programs do have there weakneses I am already shouting this for a long time and even tell which weakneses they have You did do nothing with your program to overcome these problems neither. But don't shout like you are mister know it all Like you already do with Diep Even I am hasitating once in a while but most of the time I get a promisng answer back soon. Only i must say I am kind of jalous in the way they threath you here. like a kind of china that is. At once people are defending you. In contrair with me you even stand up to defend lies (I don't say you did win that game in 2000 In fact I don't care) While I am fighting for the threuth I am intrested in your sharp remarks hehe. Aslong if you are not going to say that I have to proof my work again Or about spelling (talking about childish) Cause then I ask you to proof you exist and you realy be you think you be.
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.