Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 08:38:15 08/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2004 at 11:07:06, Peter Berger wrote: >On August 23, 2004 at 10:55:55, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > > >>Not this way around please - you made the assumption that nothing could be >>really said yet because we all didn't know. > >Incorrect - I never posted anything like that. Count me out of this discussion, >this is getting ridiculous. Ridiculous is what you pretended. I quote: [quote BEGIN] >I am disappointed that you don't differentiate between perfect proofs >and rumours. That discredits the wonderful work of Paul H. in this case. >Best, >Matthias. [here is what Peter Berger answered:] That's not reasonable, Matthias. For an ordinary user of chessprograms a baseless accuse and a perfect proof will look very similar, if presented in a similar way. For example a non-programmer might be able to judge whether a conclusion supports the accuse of cloning, but not if the conclusion itself is correct. Just think of a perfect proof in Suaheli :) [quote END] That was your message, where you pretended that we couldn't know because exact proof looked like "baseless accuse". This is unbelievable! It insinuates that Paul and all the real experts here would want to say nonsense. But to the contrary they agreed with Paul. Therefore - I said - it was unneccessary to remain sceptical for all the lays. In that forum here the experts watch what is being said in such troubling topics. Of course you want to run away because you are surprised what a nonsense you had implied in your quoted message above. The same even came a second time from your side in a direct message addressed to me, hence I told you the whole truth. In general of course you are correct. Lays can't decide anything in whatever field!! But where that has been told? At least not here. Here the experts and also Bob in the first place have spoken. Perhaps you are confusing as if this is the same case as in Graz. But it isn't. Here the proof was given without source code in need. It was even proven that the LIST from Graz was not a Crafty copy. Impossible, because no Bitboards. Just read Paul here. (Let me finish with a personal address to you. You were therefore so badly wrong because it seemed as if you wanted to support Frank Q. who had also switched what Bob had written into almost ridicul. This is nasty. It is however a difference to admit here that the experts think that Chinito is a copy and to act on the webpage where Chinito is offered by a partner. Of course you want to hear him before you act. But here in CCC Frank should have admitted the proof. It's impossible for Eugenio to change that proof. Hope this helps. Watch your blood pressure. :))
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.