Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 15:58:22 02/23/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 13:44:44, Dan Kiski wrote: >On February 23, 1999 at 11:22:27, Thom Perry wrote: > >>On February 23, 1999 at 09:48:55, Dan Kiski wrote: >> >>>On February 23, 1999 at 04:32:08, Tina Long wrote: >>> >>>>On February 21, 1999 at 19:50:13, Micheal Cummings wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Rich just post the game score to shut these people up. We all know I like CM6K >>>>>and would just love to shut these people up once and for all, my games played >>>>>against Rebel 10 using the so called cooked opening books are the same, CM6K >>>>>thinks mainly on Rebel 10's thinking time, and in allot of cases has anywhere up >>>>>to 50 minutes more time on Rebel 10, this is not always the case but usually is. >>>>> >>>>>Keep up the good work, anything Good CM6K does I always like to hear. >>>> >>>>Michael, >>>>Once you were caught you admitted that you were using books created by your >>>>"Friend". i.e. COOKED BOOKS for Rebel only, you didn't even reverse the >>>>openings to make it a little fair. So skip the "so called" part. >>>> >>>>1. g3 sheesh!! >>>> >>>>Tina Long, >>> >>>Michael clearly made no extravagent claims in that post and when asked openly >>>admitted using a non standard book. That is somewhat different from this case >>>where it seems that only results are claimed without even giving the game >>>scores. Your statements make it appear that Michael was trying to acheive >>>something with his post and I'm not even sure the "cooked books" statement is >>>fair since he was only experimenting. >>>Dan Kiski. >> >>I agree with Tina. As I recall, it wasn't until someone questioned the 1. g3 >>openings that the information about the "experimental" or "cooked" [or whatever >>you choose to call it] opening book came to light. Why not simply play the >>programs heads up without "experimenting" unless you wanted to make sure that >>CM6K would win? And if it were experimental, this should have been mentioned >>before the games were posted. > >But Michael only posted one game without happening to mention every single >detail, missing one, a slip on his part, which anyone checking the game as we >all do could easily see. And that don't make sure that the CM6K would win >because the book was experimental, it just means the book was experimental, not >"cooked". >Dan Kiski. Thom I explained all this and if you want to look at this in a negative way then I cannot help that, but let me explain it to you again. The game had just finished, I had 20 minutes till I had to go to work, so I copied the moves to a txt file, and then added what hardware I was using and hash tables. I got on the net and copied and pasted all of that to here. After that you will see I forgot to say what time control I was using so I posted again the time control, with 2 minutes till I had to catch the train I got off the net, I posted the games to see what reaction I would get to this type of game. I got back on a while later to see something about the g3 move, I explained this as an oversight and that I forgot to add this due to me being in a rush and corrected it. I still do not understand how you think I could be so dumb as to try a fool people on here who know more about computer chess than me as to play an opening move that one of the worlds best chess programs do not play. You are basically Tina and Thom calling me dishonest, I take offense to that, I explained how this happened you have given your opinion which is not true so just shut up about it, keep on saying this over and over again like Tina has been is just a plain personal attack.
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.