Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:42:55 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 18:15:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 16, 2002 at 17:38:42, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On September 16, 2002 at 17:01:13, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 2002 at 15:53:06, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>NB please that I did never say he faked or cheated data. All I said was: These >>>>30 games including the five games I posted could_not_ show something relevant >>>>about this styled Rebel. >>> >>>What then, was the meaning of the thread title: >>>"How people could detect if a game was cooked?" >>> >>>Sounds like an accusation to me. Certainly in the context of the material you >>>posted, I do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise. >>>[snip] >> >>I'm a bit astonished by such a tone here, Dann. Now I must explain the English >>meaning to you. It's sad. >> >>To answer your question I remind you of the point that I originally _thought_ >>that Thorsten posted or quoted the games, because they should "prove" or show >>that the created new style played "stronger" than the default version. My >>question was if such games, my 5 examples, could do that successfully. I thought >>'No'! If you doubt my original opinion then why these games were posted at all? >>They stood in context of Thorsten's claim that his style was stronger against >>Shredder ans so on. But the games don't prove it. >> >>I found that the games contained a cook against Shredder. Explanation: because >>the Shredder book contained the weak line. What should this prove about the >>Macheide style??? Nothing IMO. >> >>I asked a scientifically interesting (for me!!) question how people, I meant >>all, could detect such cookes games in testing. Because it made the tests weaker >>by definition! (Would you now doubt my scientific interest I showed from my >>first posting on? Either about SSDF or the DB2 team.) >> >>Note that I did NOT think that _Thorsten_ cooked these games!!!! >> >>They are cooked because of the opening book. And I thought I had made a valuable >>_discovery_. Just by playing through the lines. I found the examples. >> >>Please do not lay bad intentions into my mouth when they definitely are not >>there! >> >>Of course I thought that it was a bad thing for Thorsten to post these games, >>but I did never even _insinuate_ that he tried to _cheat_ with them. For what >>purpose should he have done it??? >> >>I repeat I found the cooks and asked a question "how people could detect such >>cooks". Please stop pushing me in corners where my honest questions should look >>like the insults, Thorsten read in them. There are no insults! >> >>Please give a short correction here if it's understood by now what the meaning >>was. Thank you. >> >>It's important for me because Thorsten already wrote about my intentions to >>destroy and so on. This is most insultive for me. > >Perhaps much of the problem is with language interpretation. I certainly have >not read all the messages in this thread nor do I intend to (as they are >relatively uninteresting to me). > >It seemed from the context of what I read that you were accusing Thorsten of >something. Perhaps if I had read all the messages in the thread, I might have >thought otherwise. > >As far as breaking someone else's book, I think it is a very good idea and >everyone ought to do it. After all, that advances the theory of chess doesn't >it? And the best time to do the breaking is always "right now" so that it >occurs during testing and not during a contest. > >I do wish that you could take whatever sort of a squabble you have with Thorsten >to private email. Being intrinsically lazy, I don't want to have to deal with >it. That would be the best solution. But take my word that my 5 examples were not motivated because I have something against Thorsten. But I can't assure you for the reverse. Rolf Tueschen
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.