Author: Mark Young
Date: 19:23:05 08/12/98
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 1998 at 21:40:16, blass uri wrote: > >On August 12, 1998 at 16:12:04, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On August 12, 1998 at 14:20:31, Mark Young wrote: >> >>>You said Fritz 5 lost to Rebel 10 in a match. And this was proof that Fritz 5 is >>>weak. The fact was Fritz drew Rebel 10 in the match and Fritz was on a slower >>>computer a P 200mmx for Fritz 5 Vs A P II 400 for Rebel 10. >> >>When somebody tells me that he has played a match of two programs against each >>other, and tells me rebel is killing fritz, I imply as a normal >>thing that he uses same machines. >>I have no idea which machines moritz has. He often changes his hardware. >>I prefer using the same speed hardware. I see no sense in playing different >>hardware. > >I think moritz knew from the past that even with better conditions for Rebel9 >Fritz5 beated Rebel9 >so he decided to test Fritz5 against Rebel10 in the same not fair conditions >to see if Rebel10 is better then Rebel9. >I see sense in tests without fair conditions to see what is the eqvivalent times >between computer programs. > >>When we telephoned this was said in a unimportant comment. We spoke about >>something different, and in a small comment moritz told me this thing about >>rebel10. >>I did not asked him about his conditions. As i said: i think fair conditions are >>the normal thing. but i see, not anybody thinks the same. >>If this makes me a liar in your eyes, i accept this. > >This does not make you a lier in my eyes but I hope in the future you will be >more careful. >I think you did a mistake when you hurried to post what you assumed. > >>What i don't accept on the other hand is, that you call me a liar here. >>Because this is IMO against the charta of this group. > >I define someone to be a lier if he said something wrong when he knew it >is wrong or if he said something wrong when he has no basis to think like this. > >I think you are responsible for posting wrong information but not a lier. > I would agree with you. But Thorsten set the standard of proof. Not me. He know what he claimed was not true. Then he claimed that the win over Fritz 5 by Rebel 10 was proof that Fritz 5 is weak. Now that we all know that Fritz 5 drew the match with rebel 10 and Rebel 10 had a 2 times speed advantage. What does that prove. Under Thorsten logic he must admit that Fritz 5 is a strong program. Or will Thorsten logic not apply when it comes to fritz 5. I expect a fast back peddle from Thorsten or another lie to cover his flawed logic. >Uri
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.