Author: Omid David
Date: 13:47:26 09/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2002 at 09:12:51, Mike S. wrote: >I'd like to bring to you a translation of what I found to be one of the funniest >computerchess postings ever. The main part is (c) by CCC member Volker Pittlik >(thx Volker!) and appeared on the CSS message board today; I did some additions >at the end of the list. > >-------------------------------- >Universal Disagreement Checklist >-------------------------------- > >(please check your counterarguments) > >Your results are invalid, because: > >[ ] the engines you used are unsuitable for that purpose >[ ] you didn't play enough games >[ ] the time control was too short >[ ] the hash size was set too small >[ ] the hash size was set too large >[ ] other settings were wrong >[ ] learning was off >[ ] learning was on >[ ] you didn't use tablebases >[ ] you used only 4-piece tablebases >[ ] you included 5-piece tbs., but in the same directory >[ ] you included 6-piece tbs.: not every engine can use them >[ ] it wasn't equal hardware >[ ] you switched hardware, but in the wrong moment >[ ] it was full moon >[ ] you didn't care for good karma >[ ] you didn't memorize all my 60 memorable postings >[ ] you didn't watch the game live, to check for errors >[ ] you watches the games live, thus influencing the results >[ ] your results are pure coincidence >[ ] your hardware is outdated >[ ] your hardware is all new, so it's not clear that it's working properly >[ ] your CPU type is bad for one of the engines >[ ] your RAM type is a disadvantage for no. 3 >[ ] your cat/dog/wife accessed your computer while you wasn't there >[ ] I simply don't like your results and therefore I think the opposite it true >[ ] you didn't use the engine-specific opening books as it's recommended >[ ] you used the engine-specific books, which leads to completely distorted >results >[ ] you used the *** set of opening positions, which favour *** as we all know >[ ] of course you should have used a neutral set of opening positions >[ ] matches with less than 1 gigabyte hash just aren't state-of-the-art anymore >[ ] it's inacceptable that the bios settings are not documented >[ ] you removed/did not remove/didn't even search for doubles >[ ] you used the autoplayer connection, which is unreliable >[ ] you used only one pc, which can't provide reliable results >[ ] Windows *** always makes trouble, better is Windows *** >[ ] your testing approach does not meet scientific standards >[ ] your testing approach is much too sophisticated compared to normal practise >[ ] your testing approach is perfect, but for shuffle chess only >[ ] nobody has ever done it like this >[ ] this has already been done long before > >***) may be chosen be individual taste > >-------------------------------- > >:o)) > >Regards, >M.Scheidl LOL! Thanks for the post! You can also add: [ ] you didn't take a drug test for the engines
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.