Author: Chessfun
Date: 16:47:28 02/08/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 08, 2004 at 18:49:01, stuart taylor wrote: >On February 08, 2004 at 10:25:14, Chessfun wrote: > >>On February 08, 2004 at 06:32:35, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>On February 08, 2004 at 03:10:34, Stefan Pohl wrote: >>> >>>To me, this is a fascinating subject, and very fundementally important. >>> >>>But, how great is Shredder 8, according to this FRC list? >>> >>>Does it mean much that Shredder is in first place? >>> >>>Why? >>> >>>Because Hiarcs 9 is known to be only mediocre, and even H9 comes very close, and >>>could have been top. >> >>Do you know anything about computer chess? >>Do you own any of these engines you make reference to in this post? >> >>>OK, so let's say that Hiarcs is especially strong in FRC, more than in normal >>>chess. But the Fritz is 8005! and that has long been known to have been >>>considerably weaker than 8008. >> >>Please supply info, re: where you get this reference and what the use of the >>word "considerably" means in terms of rating points? > >I'm refering to what has been overwhelmingly proven/posted in CCC during the >past year or more. Anything which seems to be missing in my understandings, you >are welcome to correct. Again please point me to anything that states that Fritz 8.0.0.5 is considerably weaker than Fritz 8.0.0.8. And please advise what in terms of rating points the term "considerably" means? You also stated Hiarcs 9 is known to be "only mediocre" what is the basis for this statement?. It certainly can't be the latest SSDF rating list which shows it only 40 points from being #2. http://w1.859.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/list.htm. >Sarah, >Reacting to my comments the way you do, doesn't contribute to making YOU seem >intelligent. I hope not as they weren't meant to. My reaction was meant however to show how foolish your post was. And that I think was a success. >If you have nothing more intellectual to express however, I wouldn't want to >spoil your enjoyment! Good! You didn't! >Obviously, If you would like to answer a little bit more to the point, I might >be interested in reading it! I was directly to the point, I made it. Making statements such as you made and with the use of the words "considerable" and "only mediocre". Without stating what either is supposed to mean nor the justification for the comments, IMO make the poster, you, look like someone who does not have a clue what they are talking about. I challenged your comments and you made no effort to justify them. In this case though I'll go one further. Typically I don't read your posts here at CCC as IMO typically they are full of these types of comments. I would generally define the types of posts you make as trolls. It's rare you'll post positions or analysis of positions. Also posting a game is something your not inclined to do. For the most part again IMO you pose questions that I would define as meaningless and inciteful rather than insightful. I am generally surprised by the patience shown by responders to your posts. I shall not reply to anything more on this thread, though please feel free to write what you wish. Sarah.
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.