Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 05:37:20 05/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2003 at 06:48:11, Johan de Koning wrote:
>On May 23, 2003 at 04:48:36, Harald Faber wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 2003 at 21:59:19, Johan de Koning wrote:
>>
>>>On May 22, 2003 at 20:55:15, Axel Schumacher wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>just to add some more data to CM-personality discussion. Let's face it,
>>>
>>>Let's cut things short.
>>>I don't think your (Kurt's, etc) results are useless, and I never said so.
>>>I don't think your (Kurt's, etc) methods are rubbish, and I never said so.
>>>
>>>This discussion started when Kurt was upset by a, let's say, rather creative
>>>interpretation of my words. And now everyone is PO'ed. :-(
>>
>>
>>Not me. :-)
>>However, if you think you are misinterpreted, why do you leave this
>>misinterpretation open and don't clarify the questionable points?
>
>Basically because I do have a life, and checking CCC 4 times a day for possible
>inaccuracies is not part of it. In fact I'm usually 2 days behind, reading. On a
>fast moving forum like this one it makes little sense to reply after 2+ days,
>and that's the main reason for me not to try.
>
>Usually that's not a problem because there is a huge base of regulars (whose
>lives do include checking CCC pretty often :-) Together they form the spine of
>this forum, providing knowledge, experience, wisdom, and news whenever it's
>needed. Even when a few (in)famous individuals take a day off, or a month.
>
>In this particlar case Kurt reacted quickly to a misinterpretation and many then
>reacted quickly to Kurt, hence the fuss. Unfortunately virtually no one
>questioned the misinterpretation itself, which still puzzles me. By the time
>I caught up the damage was already considerable and my lame attempt at humor
>fell flat.
>
>So now I'm sad and PO'ed at the same time. Which is a rather weird feeling,
>especially after just having played some pretty exciting games at Leiden.
>I'm glad though at least 1 person here is not PO'ed.
>
>>BTW when I changed my systems and HDs I lost your email adress, could you give
>>it to me or write some clearing words to info@harald-faber.de ?
>
><insider joke mode> Backup, Harald, Backup! </insider joke mode>
>Or alternatively, look at poster. :-)
Under http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?297506 I wrote the
following:
"At Leiden Johan de Koning mentioned he would not believe that the King
plays better with other settings and that there were played too less games
to say that other settings are better then the standard ones. I think that
there is enough evidence to come to an opposite conclusion. We have played
thousands of games at longer time controls with default/other settings but
only published the most successful ones (default does not belong to them).
If an author is not prepared to accept this fact, I see indeed no reason
why CM9-fans should further test the engine with the aim to prove
something. I was just angry and therefore decided to stop testing. What I
do not understand is why there is made such a tumult about this matter."
It may indeed be that things went from the beginning wrong and then
completely out of control. There is one thing I have learnt in the
meantime: never to react in such a way on the basis of statements
from third party. And it may also be that my first posting and the further
ones were written when I was in an emotional and somewhat irrational state.
In the meantime I have cooled down although I am still unable to find out
where exactly the so called misinterpretation lies.
Regards
Kurt
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.