Author: Jens Kahlenberg
Date: 11:37:52 07/01/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2003 at 13:08:36, ERIQ wrote: >On July 01, 2003 at 11:32:40, Mogens Larsen wrote: > >>On July 01, 2003 at 09:16:06, ERIQ wrote: >> >>>yes, but i'm talking about a match not a person (ie. ruffian can't be affended!) >> >>That's no excuse, because there's an author responsible for its creation. >>Repeating the same non-chess related negative remarks is disrespectful, whether >>the author is present here or not. >> >>Regards, >>Mogens > >That is silly, how are my statements not chess related?? now it is you who are >wasting good bandwidth. also why do you feel that my statements are negative?? I >am only making an observation nothing more. imho it makes no sense to test >engines that are that for apart we gain nothing. > >also if the programer doesn't like how I feel about this then if I were him I >would try to make stronger engine and if he has done that already then why allow >testing w/ weaker one, it's his own fault his engine will be crushed in public, >not mine. That's all so don't try to make more of it than is there. > > sign, > Eriq hmmm ... looks like 2,5-4,5 in the last _games_. If you think that 14 games are worth an observation, then even the last 7 are worth it, right?! After a short glance: It seems that Ruffian has beaten Shredder like a rented mule ;-) So please tell SMK that his engine is not strong enough and ergo not worth testing because good (sic!) bandwith is wasted. That's all so don't try to make more of it than is there. Best regards, Jens
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.