Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:18:49 01/22/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 22, 2006 at 16:54:42, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >On January 22, 2006 at 16:45:52, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On January 22, 2006 at 16:43:38, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >> >>>On January 22, 2006 at 16:36:51, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>> >>>>On January 22, 2006 at 16:26:41, Andreas Guettinger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 22, 2006 at 16:12:31, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 22, 2006 at 16:01:25, Joseph Ciarrochi wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Does anybody have any evidence that the fritz gui may favour fritz under certain >>>>>>>conditions? It is not created by a neautral party (chessbase), as was arena. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please before making any such statements you should consider giving some >>>>>>evidence. Or else you may give some wrong impression about Fritz GUI that is >>>>>>wrong..... Before a long time ago Ed Schrodder made a similar suggestion that i >>>>>>don't remember if has been verified by others or proved correct.... >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Which statement? I only see that he asked a question. >>>>> >>>> A question is a statement, and actually everything written are statements at >>>>least in the way i interpret the word "statement". I may be wrong..... >>>> >>>> If i used the word "claim" then you would be right that i was wrong. And >>>>actually in the way i used the word "statement" it seemingly means "claim", but >>>>this wasn't my intention. >>>> What i said is that asking that kind of questions without providing some >>>>evidence (ALTHOUGH in a question you don't have to provide anything--it's just a >>>>question!) some wrong impression might be occured.... >>> >>>You make no sense to me. How can a questions that starts with: "Does anybody >>>have any evidence..." be required to bring some evidence? That is the reason the >>>question was asked. >>> >>>This might be different in english, but in german questions might have a meaning >>>but usually don't make a statement. >>> >> >>So far so good. And now you will read the second sentence of the writer and you >>will remark that he made a crystal clear claim which he couldnt prove. Can you >>read that for me? you will see your mistake. >> > >A commercial company on the market is by definition not a neutral party! And >will never be for me, further discussion useless. Yes, all is fine, you have that conviction, fine. But - you dont have objective proof, no? > >> >>>regards >>>Andy
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.