Author: Heinz van Kempen
Date: 00:11:17 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 03:04:23, Graham Banks wrote: >On February 13, 2006 at 02:54:20, Heinz van Kempen wrote: > >>On February 13, 2006 at 00:29:29, Graham Banks wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2006 at 19:04:55, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >>> >>>>As we have totally different concepts and because of the history all this has >>>>had I would suggest to avoid any comparison between our groups, at least from >>>>CCRL people. We did not do this from our side and it would be fair that you also >>>>avoid it. >>>> >>>>Thanks for listening. >>>>Heinz >>> >>> >>>Hello Heinz, >>> >>>history has nothing to do with it. >>>CEGT do a fine job and we have never stated otherwise. >>>Just because CCRL is based on slower time controls due to benchmarking to more >>>modern hardware does not detract from the work that CEGT does. >>>As we've said all along, all rating lists just add to the big picture. >>>We do not see ourselves competing with CEGT and I hope that you don't see CEGT >>>as competing with us. >>> >>>Regards, Graham. >> >>Hi Graham, >> >>this is not the point. I have nothing against other people commenting or >>comparing. >> >>But...all of you know how CCRL was formed. You could have done it openly and I >>would have said. "Fine, why not? Everyone has of course the right to try >>something else or something new, we could have even supported each other or have >>planned commom projects". The split was done in a way trying to destroy CEGT in >>my view and the view of other CEGT testers. >> >>It is really better not to discuss this here. I always want to avoid quarrels >>here and this is our own business. The reasons why I reject CCRL were explained >>in an email to you Graham and ... Graham, you have admitted yourself what was >>also unfair in your opinion. >> >>So my request is that especially Kirill, Sarah, Ray and you concentrate on >>giving your own data without comparison to CEGT and we will do the same. In my >>opinion there are a lot of points where CEGT is superior, but I do not mention >>them constantly. The reasons why not comparing are personal and have nothing to >>do with quality and after all what happened it would be fair from your side to >>let us test without any comments just from your side. Let us stay in peace once >>and for all this way. >> >>Best Regards >>Heinz > > >CCRL was formed by a group of testers who left CEGT. >The formation of the group was not planned before the split and most certainly >wasn't aimed at destroying CEGT. >Many forum members know me well enough to know that I would never do something >like that. >However I know you feel otherwise and that this is why you "reject" us. >Such an attitude is not good for computer chess and I would urge you to respect >CCRL as CCRL respects CEGT. >Computer chess enthusiasts are not interested in such squabbles. We should all >work together towards the betterment of our hobby. > >Regards, Graham. Hi Graham, the last sentences are why discussion should be stopped here. I uttered a request and finally want to have my peace from your group. When this is requested too much it is better for me not to post here. I really fought hard to continue and we have a fine harmonious CEGT team now. So let it stay this way and stop discussion. Best Regards Heinz
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.