Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:16:27 04/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 29, 2002 at 11:10:15, Chessfun wrote: >"of course" that's the best you can do?..lol of course is the best i can do when in a computerchess-group somebody asks for examples and i do post a pgn and someone jumps on me and comments rubbish because he has whatever problems. IMO your behaviour is extremely OFF TOPIC. maybe you could be ON TOPIC when you would post your 100 lighting games. Maybe ! but as long as your contribution is pissing on my pgn, you are welcomed to continue your outing of manners (or a lack of it). i thought it is against the netiquette to be off topic ? >you have no idea about computerchess or math, right ? that could be. but is that really interesting ? IMO interesting is computerchess. if you want to talk about maths. i would try to find a better place for doing so. if you want to refer to the pgn, feel free to do so. if not. ok. you style. i don't think it is important to talk about me. i am not important. also i am not interested in you. the games the chess programs produce is my topic. >About as impostant as your single game. your believe, mine and haralds is different. and as far as i remember, the ssdf also tests in 40/120. maybe one should tell them how unimportant there work is. would you do this part for me. i am too busy in the moment. >But i'll let you in on a secret. >My 100 games would give me some idea of the book of the two programs as I'd see >the scores out of book. And what is it we learn from your single game >posting....absolutely nothing as usual. the books are unimportant. or do you believe fritz would play better against hiarcs without book ? >As if posting one single game, with the header you used isn't a waste of time. >A waste of time for people who read it and for people who take note in such >rubbish. nobody forces you to read my posts. i do not read your posts about your fast speed tournaments too. >As I wrote above, proves once again how little you know. that might be true. i am not interested in knowing much about you. i am interested in the games the computers play. 40/120 games. >Yep I can just see it now. Let me set up my PC's for this great "KS-400" >autoplayed game. If you'd have used something a little faster you could have >saved yourself a few hours. Chris Taylor already posted a score "series" using >AMD 1700's. right. i have seen that. different to YOUR posts i do read HIS posts. his 1700 is 1.416 times faster than my 1200 mhz pair. thats about 1 minute within 3. i do watch the games of my 1200 pair too. AND the games on the 400 mhz machines. >Watching two "KS-400's" is like watching the grass grow or cricket. really. ok - i throw them on the streets. :-)) i thought they run quite good and i could use them in addition to the other machines. but now ... i see things much better. thank you cheesfun. >No I simply present a series of statistics without bias, something you have >always seemed unable to achieve. you present statistics. has ever anyone presented a statistic that was not USED for his own interests and therefore faked ? but i am sure YOURS is not biased. HOW GOOD !! than i can sleep well- >Agh is that what you were doing, "sharing". Well speaking for myself maybe next >time you can share with a little more balance. > >Sarah. Balance ?? what shall i do when fritz loses ? feed it with drugs ?
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.