Author: Thom Perry
Date: 02:50:33 02/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 23, 1999 at 18:58:22, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >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. Sorry. I apparently missed some key messages back then as I had remembered the event differently.
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.