Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: WCCC and some NPS observations

Author: Dave Gomboc

Date: 14:45:11 06/23/99

Go up one level in this thread


On June 23, 1999 at 17:29:13, Thorsten Czub wrote:

>On June 23, 1999 at 12:38:51, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>>>Right. Chris sees no reason to finance the icca although they like to ban him
>>>and me.
>
>>There was no ban on the participation of CSTal.
>
>Read what I wrote.
>There were 2 bans.
>chris was banned and i am banned.
>and i see no reason that you know it better than me.
>
>>For your own sake, try not to
>>stretch the truth beyond what is remotely believeable: your credibility goes
>>downhill fast.
>
>only ONE person stretches the truth: YOU.
>
>>You are not an independent tester.
>
>How do you know ? Do you have a program to test ?
>
>> While I respect your understanding of how
>>the program plays, you are not at arms length from the product.
>
>??? You forget that i work with many programmers.
>how do you know what i do ? And with whom ?
>
>> It would be a
>>serious error in judgement to blindly believe your claims regarding its strength
>>against computer opposition.
>
>you can blindly believe what you want-. nobody is interested :-))
>
>
>>  Why don't you ask Chris to change
>>the terms of the license to allow SSDF to publish test results?
>
>Chris does not change the licence agreement because we don't think
>(and other programmers do also forbid testing of their products)
>that they do a good and scientific job. they make
>special agreements that is against the common sense.
>therefore we do not allow them to do so.
>
>
>>That's nice, but there have been not one, but _two_ commercially released
>>versions that could be rated by the SSDF if the license allowed it.  Presumably
>>the first is not of interest anymore (nobody's old versions are of interest :-)
>>but since CSTal II has autoplayer capability, it would be possible for the SSDF
>>to establish a rating for it pretty quickly (if they haven't already done so and
>>are just not publishing it for legal reasons.)
>
>As i said: ssdf is not accurate enough. their results are not the truth.
>they are victims. not any autoplayer works accurate. there are autoplayers
>of a certain company that do not work ok. they manipulate results.
>this has been discussed in paderborn.
>you were not in paderborn. you did not discuss it. your problem.
>
>>What I know is that I'll be more interested in CSTal when I see more results
>>than excuses.  Chris has, I think, had some limited success, and I do hope that
>>CSTal improves further.  This hope is independent from the fact that much of
>>what you have posted in the past is worthy of a sustained CSTal marketing
>>campaign, but isn't as rooted in reality as you apparently believe.
>
>and you are rooted in reality ? :-)))
>
>
>>What wrong and nasty rumours did I spread in the post you replied to?  You're
>>FUDding again.  My intention?  When I see something I think is good, I say so,
>>and when I see something I think is crap, I say so.  None of my life depends on
>>how well CSTal performs: I don't have a vested interest in seeing it win or
>>lose.  Your comments about Fritz and intelligent play are over the top when
>>combined with your "associate's" ;-) no-show.
>
>When you see something wrong, you say so. and when you see nothing, you
>also say so.
>
>
>>If I knew nothing, I would have kept my mouth shut.
>
>this would be nice.

You already replied to my email to you, indicating that you did not want to
discuss the issue further.   Now it appears that the need you felt to sneak in
another personal attack in public overwhelmed your other emotions.

I'm not interested in wasting any more of my time on you any longer, sorry.

Dave



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.