Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:55:11 03/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 08, 2003 at 07:44:57, Mike S. wrote: >On March 08, 2003 at 06:50:03, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On March 08, 2003 at 04:16:25, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>Na gut, > >Note that Rolf's critical response - roughly 1.000 words long - ist based on >merely *two* words of my posting...(which meant, "Okay, but..."). I will tell you something. As a non-Academic that might be above your head, but in my studies of social sciences we had an idiot psychology professor who "analysed" the frequency of literature [!!] text vocabulary to create a profile for the author. I leave it to you to find out why we called him an idiot. Hint, because I don't want to be unfair to you, literature is mainly about the quality and NOT the quantity of certain wordings! So, the placement of my message and its length is NOT in context of the quantity of words of something you expressed! Note that you supported the character assassination of Eduard! That is evil! Of course you are caught in a trap. Do you criticise this "P." Then Chess Base will lose a handy party member who always tells his two word messages against Eduard. Do you criticise Eduard for his good work then people will understand that Chessbase is misusing the users as cheap beta testers. That ChessBase has no ethical standards of its own work other than the principle of making profit to be able then to play a sponsor role of power in the chess scenery in Germany and whole Europe! Let me tell you an example out of my own practice. It proves that ChessBase has no interest in the quality of cooperation with users or testers but only into the easiest way to produce a new product with a minimum of class. The better versions are kept for updates or the next version. So that the user must pay a double price at least to get a qualified program. Look at this: When they changed from cbf to cbh format I was a personal beta tester with continual feedback with M. Wüllenweber, the number two of ChessBase. Now it is clear that if I do a testing that I go into depth and try to do my best. But the interest in my feedback decreased more and more. Explanation: I did a too deep analysis while they only needed a quality at face value, meaning that a user who remarked bad quality if he went into deep mode, was not interesting the company. It was sufficient that the superficial appearance looked good. I can also tell you what I tested. The part of the program that is still bad, namely the files with names and tournament names. What I found out you did never even dream about! Or did you know that certain players names would NOT be listed by the routine being used by ChessBase?? That is funny if you believe that the dates in the files are a correct mirror of the true content of your database. O well, then dream on! I hope you can understand why such a feedback has no value for Wüllenweber. Because it would cost place in the engine although the faults could never be discovered by the usual/average user. But I found it all! So perhaps now you can understand why Matthias was so eager when he defamated me in the private email list at the time of CCC foundation! I always was someone who had discovered the principles of bad work in the company. Even without ever being a member of the staff!!! Now what do you say? A "P." who criticises Eduard is not a problem for Chessbase. But perhaps you can understand right now why I had to be extinguished in CSS with my "deep" questions based on own research! But Mike, back to Eduard's discovery. Didn't you know that it's evil to defamate those who are creative workers and to support those who defamate them? I thought you wanted to be a spin doctor with style. > >>Gut daß wir das mal auf Deutsch analysieren können! Hier wird nämlich die ganze >>Kläglichkeit der deutschsprachigen Computerschachszene deutlich. In diesem >>kurzen "na gut"! Hier wird ein Mensch, jedenfalls einer mit einer >>Schach-Elozahl, von der fast alle Experten hier in CCC nur träumen können, >>beleidigt und diskriminiert - und Schlauberger Mike S. hat nicht besseres zu >>sagen als "na gut". Eben NICHT gut, mein Wertester! > >Volker schrieb, "stop the trash". Er empfindet das - wiederholte - posten von >Eduards Reaktion (m.E. ein wenig überreagiert) als störend, No, this is not true. He doesn't see Eduard's messages as disturbing. He wants to defamate and stop Eduard to do his creative work. That is the truth. Because like me Eduard proves how bad ChessBase does its homework. We have an interesting aspect here. We discussed the IBM match in extenso but the crappy Fritz is put under conversation??? Good night free science in German newsgroups! That is what is relev evil done by thant in this guy. By hitting Eduard he wants to protect evil standards of ChessBase. You are right, sometimes I wonder why I am not the spin doctor for ChessBase because you do such a bad job. You don't even notice what is the main fallacy in the defense of ChessBase. :) > und dazu sagte ich >"na gut". Ist das schlimm? Keine Spur von Diskriminierung oder irgendwas. - Of course not. If you defend or support the character assassination of Eduard, this is not comparable to the Atomic Bombing of Japan, that's correct! [Wag the Dog!] And yes, character assassination isn't discrimination. How could it be? It is even worse! [maximum cynism applied!] >Ich >habe immer Eduards Schachkönnen bewundert. Yes, but the other two gents do NOT admire Eduard's chess because they are too uneducated in chess. Do not mess up yourself with these ignorants. >Wenn ich mich nicht irre, haben wir >ja sogar zu dritt einmal eine seiner scharfen Angriffsvarianten gemeinsam >analysiert (ob sie gegen F7 gewinnbar wäre oder nicht); ich glaub von daher >sollten einentlich keine Zweifel bestehen, daß ich sein Schachkönnen >respektiere. Hehehe. I understand you. By trying to replace the two ignorants by yourself you want to prove that _you_ do respect Eduard! But that was never the topic, dearest Mickey. We talk about your support of THEIR insults againstsupport tho Eduard. And I must really ask you if you feel at ease in such a double bind. You respect Ed and support those who insult him. Err, do you feel it? > >Wer denn hier der Spindoktor... :o) ? Thanks for your compliments so far. > >Vielmehr habe ich mit obigem Posting versucht, das Thema vom (über-)emotionalen >Level auf den sachlichen und simplen Grundgehalt zurückzuführen. Ich *würdige* >doch Eduards Leistung, als offenbar erster diesen Enginebug entdeckt zu haben. >(Ich bin noch nicht ganz überzeugt, daß so ein komischer Fehler mit einer Abwehr >von Anticomputerschach zu tun hat... aber könnte sein.) > >(Beim letzten Kontakt hier waren wir deutlich konstruktiver.) Let us say that contacts are not identical with the view we humans have about them. It took me 80 years of heavy thinking before I discovered that Law. ;) > >>(...) Von Ihnen hätte ich z.B. mal eine Analyse erwartet, wie das >>Ganze jetzt aus Userperspektive zu interpretieren wäre. > >Das meinte ich ja zu tun, indem ich schrieb, "Meines Erachtes ist Version >8.0.0.24 fällig" usw. Ich werte das als Bug, und erfahrungsgemäß (z.B. vom >Rochadebug von F7) wird ein Bugfix folgen, bzw. das ist aus Userperspektive m.E. >zu erwarten. > >Danach folgt dann wieder allgemeine Entspannung. > >>Hi to the English speaking crowd of CCC! > >Baseline 2 (to make it short): I don't think that I insulted anybody; I think >Eduard has over-reacted but was right about the fact itself that there is >obviously an engine bug in 8.23, and yes he is a strong chessplayer and I >respect his achievements. > >(I'm roughly ~1700 Elo which suits me fine.) Yes Mike. But Eduard is 2150 and therefore please respect Ed's superiority in matters of chess. ### :) We should not continue to disturb Eduard by pea-brain propaganda tricks. We should motivate him to do his good work. Rolf Tueschen > >Regards, >M.Scheidl > >>>(Engl.: Bottomline = Obviously there's an Nf6xe4-Enginebug; that type of >>>position is *very common* in many openings. I expect a new engine version soon.) >>> >>>mfg. >>>Michael 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.