Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 11:35:09 02/22/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2006 at 14:15:51, Albert Silver wrote:
>On February 22, 2006 at 14:08:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote:
>
>>On February 22, 2006 at 13:52:12, Albert Silver wrote:
>>
>>>On February 22, 2006 at 13:43:25, David Dahlem wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 22, 2006 at 13:35:58, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rolf has written a post where makes some judgements about Rybka. Some of them
>>>>>could be considered wrong, some other can be considered worth of a thought -as
>>>>>the one that consider a different thing to test a program in auto mode or with
>>>>>an operator- and some others very debatable.
>>>>>What I consider that in any case is of bad taste and unncesary no matter how you
>>>>>see at it is the oportunity some guys has taken to attack Rolf viciously because
>>>>>they does not like what he said about Rybka.
>>>>>Ok, you does not agree. Yu does even think Rolf went amok.
>>>>>So what?
>>>>>Is that a reason for spilling blood?
>>>>>This is an habitude that unfortunately has made big inroads here.
>>>>>I like Rybka too, but I do not forget is just a chess program. Not motive
>>>>>enough, in my opinion, to go further than just a calm "I do not agree".
>>>>>Once and again, though, a tiny thing is enough here to begin a war.
>>>>>
>>>>>Fernando
>>>>
>>>>In my opinion, Rolf's motivation with that post WAS to start a war. :-)
>>>>
>>>>Regards
>>>>Dave
>>>
>>>I tend to agree. I posted several test matches comparing different parameters in
>>>the past, playing at least 120 games for each parameter, and he criticized them
>>>saying that 120 games meant nothing statistically. Now he makes this big post on
>>>the end of Rybka based on 4 games??
>>>
>>
>>
>>You must not lie if you disagree with me. Rybka played not only these four
>>games. It was a long tournament. With Primary group, then Intermediar Group and
>>then the Semi-final and then the Final, just like a big Soccer tournament. The
>>winner in Soccer Tournament is the best in that tournament and the second is the
>>loser. But that doesnt mean anything about the true strength. Only, IF Rybka
>>were the absolute best - as all have claqimed here for months - THEN Rybka
>>wouldnt have lost the Final with 1-3 against always "loser" Fritz
>
>So you basically confirm that it is based only the the 4 games of the finals,
>since it won the other stages to reach the finals. Your only 'argument' that it
>is not the best is based on its loss in the finals. In fact you yourself asked
>what an expert might conclude, and of course you got your replies.
>
> Albert
Liar again. Where did I speak of the end of Rybka? Evidence now or shut up! What
I said was this
1) Fritz won the CSS Online Master in beating Rybka 3-1.
2) This is a break of the continual performance of wins of Rybka since Dec 2005.
Period.
Do you want to refutate a single or both of these statements? Some people
produce a lot of words, but I speak out the 'true content'.
Some people go berserk because they read that if someone says "Rybka lost a
tournament" that Rybka is no longer a strong engine. But this perspective is
their own false view which they cant attach to my messages.
/ It's time that the new CCC Software prevents the existence3 of pseudo acconts.
-Rolf
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.