Author: Sarah Reynolds
Date: 23:55:58 02/11/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 12, 2006 at 02:11:00, Chessfun wrote: >On February 12, 2006 at 01:51:37, Sarah Reynolds wrote: > >>On February 12, 2006 at 00:56:23, Peter Skinner wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2006 at 00:52:26, Sarah Reynolds wrote: >>> >>>>Yes I noticed he hasn't responded to this thread, instead further down he takes >>>>a shot at me calling my post about Hiarcs Strength "useless". I invite Mr >>>>SKinner to cite another example of the useless threads on this board since he >>>>claimed that most of them are, I want him to to cite an addition example of the >>>>useless post here, lets see him insult another member. I think he specifically >>>>chose me because I am new. So I guess he felt he could get away with an attack. >>>>I wonder why I got so many responses if my thread was as "useless" as he claims, >>>>obviously somebody thought it was a worthwhile post? I agree his behavior is >>>>very unbecoming for a moderator. >>> >>>You are hardly "new" Sarah, and you know it. >>> >>>Which would you rather be called? Sherry Windsor? Sarah Reynolds? >>> >>>If your post isn't useless, please explain how it is. >>> >>>You make a blanket statement, provide no proof for your statement.. typical.. >>> >>>Peter >> >> Now you are getting even more rediculous then I thought possible even for you. >>The title of my post who "How strong is Hiarcs" this is a question not a >>statement. Why should I not proof for a Question? Then in the content of the >>post I said it "seems to me that rykba is very strong and is stronger then >>rykba" this is a subjective feeling, > >You made the statement with the content of the post. Peter made no mention of >the header. >"This program to me seems stronger then Rykba, it plays a mean game of chess and >doesn't give the human player any chances at all, great program i think." > >>the current SSDF list certainly gives some >>validaty to that feeling. What don't need Scientific evidence for every thing we >>say do we? > >I am not sure you could point to the SSDF list as validity in any form. First >they didn't test Rybka and all other rating lists clearly show it as stronger >than any other engines. But that said you certainly don't need evidence for a >statement when it is clearly written as a personal opinion. > >>Based on the number of responses many people obviously found this interesting > >Apparently though after making the post you didn't find any other comments >interesting as you didn't reply to any of those who replied to your original >post. Not that it matters, but to me at least posting what is a personal opinion >and then not replying to those who chose to reply just seems a little odd. > >Sarah. Well I really didn't see anything to respond to, one poster called me a Salesman or something for hiarcs, I didn't want to dignify this with a response and still don't see a need to, others simply agreed with my statement so there wasn't anything futher to say.. since when is it odd not to give a response? I think someone also ask me to give proof for my statement about hiarcs strength, again I didn't think this was neccessary since it was subjective and I stated so "my feeling is"...but regardless none of this warrants someone calling a post "useless" would this not offend you?
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.