Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 17:02:10 01/10/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2006 at 11:37:32, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On January 10, 2006 at 10:59:24, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>What is system-immanent more than just a word for you? > >i thought you were an expert. you don't know the meaning of this word ? >it means richard cannot CHANGE this behaviour because its major part of >the program. e.g. chess system tal cannot compute EXACT because its part of the >design NOT to play exact. System immanent is something else. > > >>Explain what you really >>mean. > >oh man. > >e.g. genius asymmetric search is the reason it cannot handle karpov - topalov. > > > > >> What is system for Fritz? And dont forget that Frans is a Dutch. What he >>to do with your arch enemy ChessBase?? > >i have no idea what you are talking about. >i was talking about chess programs. >you again want to talk about people. Haha. I dont talk about people but "systems". You said it were a system-immanent weakness and I asked you to explain. But instead of explaining you insult. We already had that before. >rolf. if you want to talk about people, you must look for some gossip forums. >or ask the programmers for an autograph. a nice picture of frans: "for my best >friend Rolf in love" and then you can maybe be satisfied. >i am not interested in people and what they do in their private life. but in >programs and what they do while playing against each other. Certain people insult if they dont understand what other people are talking about. > > > >>Then you say something again that is zero, nothing. > >?? > >nullmove ! > >exactly. the nullmove is the reason for those 0.00 areas. >nullmove and zugzwang. >now you got it: so there is still hope for you. > > >>A program loses because of its immanent weaknesses. Tough! A real discovery. Do >>you prefer that they lose because of the weather? > >this 0.00 is in the program for ages. and for the same reason genius-programs >are not good for analysis (because they prune 1-3-5-7 plies) , fritz programs >are not good for analysis. And it will always remain so because you (Czub) says so...! Brilliant! > > >>But there is another weakness in your typical speech. You are outdated with your >>examples. Genius is over. > >yes. but it is a good example for a system that did not change and was >overtaken. Overtaken? He simply stopped it. He has a family and enough money so he stopped it. > > > >> Why did Rebel lose? Why does Pro Deo lose. Not because >>of immanent weaknesses? Tough! > >i think ed had less interest in programming. >other programmers had the same interest change when they were older. Ok, there it was system-immanent, here with Ed it's the age. Very convincing explanation. > > >>But what do you say about the new programs. Why do they lose? Why Zappa lost in >>Paderborn? Why Rybka lost that one game? I know why: because of the system! > >you do not understand what you are talking about. >its a bubble of nothing. Again. People who dont understand - like you right now - begin to insult. > > >>Someone asks you a clear question: do you want to say that others than Fritz >>know exactly what is going on when they are just losing at that moment? And >>where is your answer? Where? - Nowhere! Because you have no answer. Because >>there is no answer on such a question that was just posed because of your theory >>that poor Fritz didnt have an idea in positions when he lost. Well, this is >>really a deep discovery. > >how do you want to know. do you have a computer ? Of course NOT! >all you have is >talking about the programmers ticks. >you need to talk about dirty laundry. > >Here is what YOU understand under computerchess Rolf: > >dirty laundry > >I make my living off the Evening News >Just give me something-something I can use >People love it when you lose, >They love dirty laundry > >Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here >I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear >Come and whisper in my ear >Give us dirty laundry > >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em when they're down >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em when they're down >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em when they're down >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em all around > >We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who >comes on at five >She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam >in her eye >It's interesting when people die- >Give us dirty laundry > >Can we film the operation? >Is the heir dead yet? >You know, the boys in the newsroom got a running bet >Get the widow on the set! >We need dirty laundry > >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em when they're down >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em when they're down > >Kick 'em when they're up >Kick 'em when they're down >Kick 'em when they're stiff >Kick 'em all around > >Dirty little secrets >Dirty little lies >We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie >We love to cut you down to size >We love dirty laundry > >We can do "The Innuendo" >We can dance and sing >When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing >We all know that Crap is King >Give us dirty laundry! Of course uneducated people define critics as a form of washing dirty laundry - there are other names in political propaganda for such hated people. But we humans are no rats and therefore such concepts dont fit. But right-wing propaganda always works with this dogma. The danger from outside that threatens our sane and so peaceful community. We must forbid such critics. We cant allow them to post their opinions... This is the last message from my side on this topic. It makes no sense to talk with you since you dont get the meaning of terms you yourself intoduced into the debate.
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.