Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:48:58 08/23/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2004 at 11:38:15, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. 1)List from graz was not tested but only List4.61 2)List4.61 does not use bitboards. It prove that there is a big difference between List and Crafty but it does not prove that List does not use parts of Crafty. 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.