Author: Thom Perry
Date: 17:08:14 02/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 1999 at 08:23:33, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >On February 24, 1999 at 05:50:33, Thom Perry wrote: > >>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. > > >Not a problem Thom, now I just wish my fellow Aussie Lady Tina would do the >same. but being an Aussie like me, I do not think so :-) So you are an Aussie? Well, I have some good news and some bad news for you. The bad news is that you are a CM6K fanatic. The good news is that after you became agitated at the twist in this original thread, you vented your frustrations at us in a mature, responsible, and sensible manner. This caused me to reflect upon your explanation, which I may or may not have originally examined, and to ultimately accept it, compelling me to not only apologize, but to announce it in the header. Would you believe, I intended to capitalize the header, but I also was in a hurry to get to work this morning. Well, you know that old American saying.....stuff happens. Anyhow, if RH ever gets around to posting the Hiarcs7 analyses for those games, I may have to send him the BIG A also.
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.