Author: odell hall
Date: 14:46:21 03/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 17:07:49, odell hall wrote: > >On March 24, 1999 at 16:42:42, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On March 24, 1999 at 16:21:03, Mike Castañuela wrote: >> >> >>>I support you. >>>I have followed this discussion and I do not see sense >>>to as much noise by anything. >>>At the end facts always count, and you only have given an nickname, >>>no name, of someone that, of another way, anyone would be >>>thanked for to know that, to enter the club, he is, of sure, >>>a cheater (facts proven courtesy of Paulo). >> >>Proven? >> >>How so? >> >>I do not dispute Paulo's findings, but if you ask anyone who has checked >>computer games before, they will tell you that: >> >>1) You should base it off of more than one game. >>2) You should check for yourself and not take someone else's word. >>3) You should use the times as indicators. The times as posted could be a human, >>or could be a computer (since it was a G10+18 game as opposed to G5). >> >>Only one person has posted that he has checked the games with Fritz. But there >>are some confusing things to this: >> >>If Paulo played the game as stated (before the times for CM4000 and the other >>player were announced), then how much time did Paulo wait before entering in his >>moves? If he took very little time, then his Fritz would have had less time to >>ponder. So how is it that even the short duration moves were the same? This is a >>little confusing. How is it that Fritz makes identical moves on Paulo's computer >>and also on an unknown system? Usually, even the same program will make some >>different moves if it has different parameters (such as running on a different >>machine). 100% is strange to me. However, I have heard that programs will play >>the same moves, but I was under the impression that conditions would have to be >>similar. So if I am way off base here, please, Robert or Bruce, let me know. >> >>What if a second person checked Fritz and came back with a 60% match. What would >>that say? Anything? >> >>What Paulo did was supply supporting data for Odell's suspicion. He did not >>prove anything. >> >>KarinsDad > >KarinsDad > > >I am Starting to Question your motives in all this. You are conviently leaving >out information when you respond to post. For instance you make statements like > >>What Paulo did was supply supporting data for Odell's suspicion. He did not >>prove anything. > > > Yet in previous post I said that I had done my own investigation, and saw for >myself that Fritz5 matched the game 100%, anyone here can verify this. >Apparently you have not yet when over the game yourself, or you would know that >it is a perfect match. It is not only one aspect of the evidece that damning >but the total picture. I will repeat it again 1. uscf 752, yet this person >defeats several 2500 rated computers 2. A perfect Fritz5 match in the moves 3. >Bruce moreland's examination of the times per move (which he evaluated as very >computerly) another expert confirmed also that the times per move is >relevanant. If this does not constitute "Proof" for you then you do not believe >that "shit" stinks!! According to Skarks Law Dictionary here is the definition of slander slander A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media--for example, over the radio or on TV--it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience. See Topic: Criminal I have not even remotely came close to any of the above. I challenge anyone to prove that 1. I made an untruthful statement 2. Had intent to harm that person's (who i don't even know) reputation
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.