Author: stuart taylor
Date: 17:08:12 04/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 08, 2003 at 22:20:59, Mike Byrne wrote: >On April 08, 2003 at 12:05:36, stuart taylor wrote: > >>Are you still working in increasing playing strength of your program(s), or do >>you feel you've done about as much as you can, or, are you taking a rest? > >Boderline Rude - the implication is that the Tiger is not getting stronger Do you mean to say there has been a patch recently with a "significant" strength increase, or that it has been promised? If so, tell me!, if not, so I'm not saying anything new, so why do you blame me? > >> >>CT15 hasn't been a clear No.1 for a few months now. Am I saying anything different to the ssdf? Why blame ME? > >Flat out Rude. > >>I'm quite aware that the >>possibility does exist, but it's more likely that Fritz is, already for a few >>months now. > >Rude again. I said better than almost anyone else here would have said. I said that the possibility DOES exist within the ssdf error range that CT15 is indeed the top, after the error has been brought to -+0. Only that it would be nice if there could be a further upgrade to make even less close to the runner up, i.e. even FURTHER ahead. > >>I thought you never tollerated second or third place, so why aren't we hearing >>more from you recently? > >Goes back to first statement - bookending the 2nd and 3rd statement - the reader >has nothing else but to assume that Chris is being slammed here No! I was quoting his own words from a previous year, and wanted to remind him. > >>Fritz still DOES make mistakes and have weaknesses, so there is still plenty >>what to doiminate it about. > >An indirect hit. Fritz is making mistakes, so why isn't Tiger getting better. > >Ties together all statements as one big slam. That was an attempt at encouraging him even more. > > >> >>And, what about Tiger for ARM Palm processors? > >Another hit, if you're not working on the PC version, why aren't you working on >the Pocket PC version. You mean Palm? Yes, I was asking about that too. Doesn't he want people to be interested? > > >> >>Regards >>S.Taylor > > >If you were not trying to offend Chris, you have either have as much sensitivity >as an "atom bomb", or you are in serious need of good english writing class or >some combination thereof. > >My two cents - Chess programmers, good chess programmers like Chris are always >working on their engine. They are good because they love it and it's hard to >pull back from it. So you hinting that Chris had not been working on his engine >was a major affront to him -- and understandbly so. > >Other than asking Chris if he's working on his program - what was the point of >all your questions? What were the positive things, if any, you were trying to >say about Tiger? If you were, they got lost in the all negatively. > >My take is that you were totally clueless on how you came across. Maybe, but now I have explained myself precisely, I hope. Also, other ways of asking those questions normally get very vague answers, like "it won a tournament" or "due to the error range, we know absolutely nothing yet". I was trying to circumvent answers like those, which would not have been of interest to any regular poster here. S.Taylor
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.