Author: Kevin Strickland
Date: 07:06:43 04/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
>Jeess, >Kevin wake up! >Nowhere in the original message did I see Vincent claming or proving that he is >not an idiot. Vincent's message is clear INTEL HAS A BETTER (FASTER EXECUTABLE >SPEED) COMPILER THAN MS! Eugene, who works for M$ compiler team, responds with a > wild claim that multiple threads are better than multiple processes and also >that Vincent is a thief! How professional and to the point this is?! What about >the actual speed? How it starts the FUD on personal level against the messenger >... If you can not discredit the message, discredit the messenger. ... >I've seen the EGTB code in crafty ... it is far from professional quality. More >like a patched-up spaghetti code. Shall we start complain about it and call >Eugene names?! I think not! (most of these tpe of statements are personal >opinion, anyway, while the speed of the executable is not.) That, however, is >not what Eugene does. He goes personal ... > >Thank you Eugene for sheding some light on the topic of execution speed! > > >>I think you are taking what he said that turning this into a MS vs Intel battle >>when he was just plain calling you an idiot. Just my two cents. > >Which it is (a battle) for the people that work in the correct departments and >that is why he's been called an "idiot". There is nothing left for the M$ guy to >do. > >Regards, >hristo Eugene made the comment that Diep wasn't professionally programmed. Not the results obtained by Diep were false. He also made the claim that Diep has code fro other programs that he did not get permission to use. I don't see anywhere how that means he is discreditting the results. When I add 1+1 I get 2... do you get the same?
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.