Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:42:57 01/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2004 at 17:11:38, Frank Quisinsky wrote: >On January 23, 2004 at 12:39:31, José Carlos wrote: > >Hi, > >>I've deleted a lot of old text to make this more readable. I apologize if I >>deleted something relevant. > >It's ok for me .. > >> A good support is good. But _only_ a good support is not enough. Think about >> it. > >Yes, but i missed a good support from much others and try to make it better. I >think if I gave critic I must make it better or I cann't give critic only. > >>Yes, you mix commercial with amateur. I'm trying to make a point about >>commercial behaviour and professional ethics. So please, amateur and freeware >>don't have anything to do with the discussion, don't bring them up. > >Carlos, for me it's the same! >The computer chess area is a very small group compare to much other things. >Every new program is an event, a new commercial version or a new freeware >version. All is important but the most don't see what the others make. I see >much copys from ideas of the lastest years. This is OK but if persons make copys >from ideas it is very important to see in comments not only the once >development. I cann't try to make the World better but I go the same way, all >the time and my fealing is good. > >In fact: >In computer chess area the work by the amateurs are clearly better as the work >by the professionals. Against this big group of amateurs the professionals have >no chance. Playing strength is not important alone! > >> That's not true. > >I hope so! >You can be sure that I search not the discuss with yourself if I have this >opinion from your person. I wonder, I must thinking about your words and try to >understand. More or less a defence from my own opinion to difference things and >I hope you understand me better. Not important if I make a mistake in your >opinion or not, important for me that you understand me ... and I must try to >understand you. > >> Look, we both have some problems with english. It's not our natural languaje >>and some misunderstunding are not rare to happen. If I misunderstand something >>your write, please tell me what you meant. I have no problem admitting when I >>misunderstand something. > >Yes, I have a lot to do if I go online and I must work fast or I sitting on the >next day the double time on my PC. It is so Carlos and this is the reason that >different persons have a problems with comments by myself. I have not the time >to thinking about every sentence 5 minutes. I wrote every time what I think >directly ... now I must thinking ... complicated messages for me because >different of your comments are right but believe me Carlos I have not only >commercial interest and for me is Ruffian the best WB engine in the World. I >cann't see a second engine which are playing on this high level (Deep Sjeng is >in the near and TheKing maybe the new Gandalf version 6 ... I don't know because >I don't have it). I am honest and wrote it but I wrote it too that this is not >the best way for a good publicity. Now it's too late to make changes in the text >of the handbook but I have learn a little bit. No problem to say it! > >> I think you misunderstood. Look at my post when I said the above comment. It's >> related to Averno. Read it and you'll see I meant "Averno can be a piece of >> shit...". > >Yes I read your comments now three times and you have right. >Missunderstanding by myself! > >> Fine. We all make mistakes. The problem is that you don't like to admit it and >> stick to a wrong idea/opinion/behaviour even when you're shown it is wrong. > >Yes, it's possible! >I am not easy :-) > >> Exactly Frank. If a user would sent me a message "José, Averno doesn't >>understand pawn majorities in the queenside and loses game after game with this" >>and I would reply "No, that's wrong, queenside majorities are not important, >>only important for me is king safety" then I would be acting like Frank >>Quisinsky acts most of the time. > >Carlos it's enough please! >Now it's not easy to give a good answer for me. >Maybe you have me now on the right position ... > >> Yes, I agree. A commercial project in combination with a freeware project is >> very interesting. As you can see, I don't kick all FQ's ideas. > >Good to read it, now I am in a better position. > >I believe this is the future for the next years! Everyone must have the basis >for our hoppy for free. The basis are good and free GUIs and with the basis >comes the modules ... engines! For me it's very important that we have good GUIs >and in the past is this the main problem for myself. I power the engines and not >the GUIs because my ideas, mails and so on comes not to the right persons. > >Too many commercial interest and persons which defend this interest behind a >faster way for computer chess in the past. > >WinBoard is a good basis (I am sure we have the same opinion) but WinBoard is >not for all persons interesting because it have not enough options and >possibilities. I think important is to power a GUI and we all have more fun with >all this nice engines. Martin Blume make here a good work and try to build this >GUI for all the interesting programs. Much other try it now too (Jose for an >example and we all know Scid). I am not a programmer and have no interest on >programming and in this case I have to power the good idea with an other part. > >> As Uri points in other message, this could be considered as not a lie the >>first time you wrote it. But now you're very well aware that you can't prove >>such a claim. So stating it as a fact is lying. >> But if you're really interested in thinking about my comments, then you can >>find better ways to express your opinion. This is my opinion: "Ruffian is one of >>the strongest winboard program in the world. It often ends up in the top places >>of the tournaments (with other winboard engines) we see posted here and in >>winboard forum". You can add, for example "in my tests it performs better than >>any other engine, and is the strongest with a degree of certainity of 95%". Or >>you could say "one of the versions in the CD won the world champs in Leiden" or >>whatever facts you can prove. If you express opinions without proof, be sure to >>make that clear. > >This is right but ... >The problem is ... Ruffian is the strongest WinBoard engine :-) >I am sure with it ... after all what I saw in the lastest months. > >I aggreed that I have better not wrote this sentence. >This was a mistake! > >But all in all ... RUFFIAN is the best of all WB engines which I know and are >available, its clear my opinion and the text in the handbook is from myself. > >> The above sentences are ok for me. But note that I could say the same of >>Averno. I could say "Averno is one of the x strongest chess programs in the >>world", where x is 1000, 500 or possible 200. Or use no "x" at all and the >>sentence would still be true. > >I know ... > >> Blame your collaborators for that. You can't blame your potential customers >>for your mistake. You risk making them angre and losing some sells. You made a >>mistake, none of your collaborators told you. It was a mistake of your team. > >Carlos, I haven't thinking about this sentence because I am 100% sure about it. >So I haven't see the mistake and not think about the text. This have not to do >with commercial interest and to make money. How can you be sure about it after seeing WBEC results? You can be sure that Ruffian2 performed better in your tests but in order to be practically sure that it is the best you need more than it including tests at longer time control. You tested it in clearly faster time control than the time control that Leo is using for his tournaments and also without the original book. I also like games without the original books but they are not enough to say that one engine is better. Uri
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.