Author: Mike S.
Date: 05:27:21 08/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 26, 2002 at 07:12:07, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 26, 2002 at 00:51:24, Mike S. wrote: > >>On August 25, 2002 at 15:50:26, Jeroen Noomen wrote: >> >>>You are very much right there! But I guess ChessBase could do >>>something about this by making the Fritz.ctg's only accessable >>>to the Fritz engines. Should not be such a big problem to >>>accomplish, I guess. >> >>(...) >>You're suggesting a step backwards into chess software neanderthal. :o)) >>(...) >It's interesting how you mist to comment on the question. Since I have a bit >experience from debates with you in CSS the computerchess journal very closely >related with ChessBase, since F. Friedel is a leading member in both, I know >what your're trying to achieve. You're trying to define reality (...) Maybe I've been overestimated a few times, but this beats everything :o). Please, I'm really not trying to define reality. I'm busy trying to express my view of reality, which is difficult enough (language etc.). But I've commented on the question, earlier: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?247649 >(...) >GROMIT played with the FRITZ 7 ctg in SSDF! Yes! I have no clear opinion on the issue... there are several ideas which seem reasonable (own books only, standard book for amateurs...). - It seems, or seemed that SSDF will use general.ctg instead, but since it turned out that this is the predecessor = Fritz 6-book, the discussion will continue. But it's obvious that using one of the very best commercial opening books for a strong amateur must raise critizism. It was a typical "clumsy" SSDF decision, like others I've mentioned (CM8K, H8 tournament book). OTOH they can do as they wish of course, and still maintain to be one of the most important info sources. But it's just natural IMO that some details will be discussed and critizised, from different viewpoints. That reflects the importance of the SSDF list. People don't care critizising things which are not interesting, or unimportant. Maybe our main concern should be that the SSDF testers can keep getting their fun out of what the are doing with much effort... OTOH, if a rising number of doubtful desicions reduces the faith people have in the list, nobody else than SSDF themselves are to blame. >Please could you be so kind and crawl back to find a reasonable definition for >the allowance, perhaps fairness is another important term to define here, of >such a malpractice? What is the official position of ChessBase? The problem is that terms like "definition" or "official position" are much too sophisticated to apply here... :o) Regards, M.Scheidl
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.