Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:12:27 09/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2002 at 18:36:12, Ed Schröder wrote: >Rolf, > >It's perfectly okay to ask questions, there is nothing wrong with that. But >let's go back to the heart of the discussion. > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?252183 > >In there as last sentence you conclude: > > "Someone looks as if perfectly pre-arranged. Who can > find the evidence?" > >It's one thing to ask questions, it is another thing to draw a conclusion while >your questions aren't even answered. > >No surprise the tester in question gets upset. > >Take care. > >Ed Ed, it's sad to see you with such nitpicking. Please do also read what I wrote in my answers to moderator Dann. Ed, a general remark. I did not accuse Thorsten of cheating or doing something unallowed here. All the questions in the mentioned article are questions for my better understanding the details. It's odd, but I must now look as if I were your teacher. But you know that I'm not, so don't feel insulted. :) Ed, what was the topic of my questions? Can you remember? It was this. How can Thorsten post games who do not prove what they should prove, namely the improval of Macheide Rebel! Now I found a position and asked questions. And after these questions I wrote sort of summary. But honestly take a closer look. The paragraphe is corrupted. And I do not know myself what was its original version. It makes no sense the someone, the isolated y. My English is not good enough so that I could find the solution of the puzzle. But most important point in my eyes is the fact that tuning for me at least is the same as changing, tweaking and arranging. My honest question was if it would bring anything if you constructed such engines who then could play such nonsense games with cooks. Sounds a bit complicated but then I'm not the expert here. No, I asked for explanations. So, this context is clear. 7 questions and no premature conclusions. But in the end it might have been that I tried to justify with further words my motivation. And I can speak it out here very clearly. If someone would tune your Rebel so that Rebel played right to the cookings of the opponent then I wouldn't call it amelioration! Because that has nothing to do with strength! But Ed, look at the wordings. I didn't say that Thorsten DID it. I asked. And I had no clue what was going on. So I ASKED for someone seing the evidence. That alone means that I had no evidence for the idea of pre-arranging, no!!? Or what would you conclude here. Ed, it's really not nice how you are trying to get me with such little quotings out of context. Most of the time it gives a false presentation. But don't bother to analyse the 5 examples for further insinuation I could have written. I can only say that I had NONE. The _only_ idea I had: why Thorsten gives such games, or other variation: why Thorsten is tuning Rebel Macheide so that it goes into such cooking lines which can't prove a thing about strength. And I have still the same question now. Do you know the answer? Take care :) But youre not Jonas, no? :) Good night Rolf Tueschen P.S. I take for granted that you don't want to excuse Thorsten's insults against me. Because evewn being upset doesn't justify insultings. IMO.
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.