Author: Graham Banks
Date: 00:13:29 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 03:11:17, Heinz van Kempen wrote: >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 Sounds good to me Heinz. Let's work in a spirit of cooperation and respect. Regards, Graham.
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.