Author: Steve Lopez
Date: 22:20:50 07/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 03, 1999 at 22:04:14, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: >I am truly sorry that it caused you so much of your time because I posted f6 >instead of fxg6, but what about the amount of time ChessBase has caused >consumers to waste trying to find out the proper hash table formula for Hiarcs? >Hmmm. I don't see you complaining about that. There's no need for anyone to make such complaints, as I've addressed the issue in T-Notes as well as in posts to this very forum. >If we are to take your reply here >that you are not interested in addressing further posts of moves by me, then you >are saying that consumers shouldn't buy any further products from ChessBase for >the same reason. I said I wouldn't do so *on my own time* as opposed to *on company time*. However, you're very obviously and deliberately misinterpreting my statements -- I will address this matter at the end of this post. >That is my analogy. Let's take a good look at what confusion, >waste of time that ChessBase has caused: OK, Mel, we'll do this for the umpteenth time -- no problem. But I find it pretty amusing that when I essentially let you have the last word, you keep on perpetuating the discussion/argument (again, this will be addressed at the end of this post). > >i. The wrong manual with the wrong formula for hash tables. The manual is 99% accurate, since Hiarcs and Fritz share the same interface. FYI, Junior5 and Nimzo99 also ship with the Fritz5.32 manual. To date, you are the *only* person I've encountered who has continued to take issue with this even after the issue of identical interfaces has been explained (repeatedly, in your case). However, the entire reason for a column like T-Notes is to correct mistakes in the documentation, amplify information that's in the documentation, and explain features in more depth than is possible in a printed or electronic manual. I've covered nearly all of your concerns in T-Notes over the course of the six weeks or so since the release of Hiarcs7.32. If the documentation was anywhere near as bad as you claim, I would be bombarded with e-mail asking for clarification. I get fewer than a half-dozen e-mails a week on Hiarcs7.32 and since my recent T-notes articles, the questions here in CCC have gone down to a mere trickle. > >2. A program with the wrong formula for hash tables under "System Configuraton". You may address this question to Matthias Wuellenweber, one of the ChessBase programmers. I don't have his e-mail address handy, but you can find a direct e-mail link to him at www.chessbase.com > >3. A somewhat confusing matter about tablebases. As we once discussed on the phone: "All hardware sucks, all sofware suck, and all manuals suck". There is no such thing as "perfect documentation" that will be crystal clear to all readers. However, there *was* a small amount of confusion about the tablebases which has been cleared up by my T-Notes article on tablebases published a couple of weeks ago. You'll notice that since that article hit the Web, tablebase questions here in CCC Have dropped to nearly nil, except for technical questions which Mr. Nalimov has been answering. > >4. In Fritz 5.32 no explanation about the two opening books that are included. It's in the small booklet in the jewel case, as I've explained to you before numerous times. I still maintain that there is no major qualitative difference between using f5book.ctg and general.ctg with Fritz5.32, as the program will use both books and do well with either. I asked a couple of fellow ChessBase employees (including my immediate superior) about this matter and they agreed with my assessment. The consensus is that either book is equally useful and that endless arguments about which is "better" are pretty much a waste of time, as there is probably no objective answer to this question. the f5book.ctg is the book Fritz5 used in competitions, while general.ctg was provided for use with other chessplaying engines that don't enjoy Fritz' aggressive tactical acuity or have other, more subtle differences in playing style. > >My error so disturbs you for the amount of time you supposedly wasted even >though I did give you the correct move order in a post to you which you probably >never even read thoroughly. Thank you for your confidence in my reading comprehension skills. Insulting speculative statements like these are why I'm not terribly interested in further correspondence with you, not (as you assume) a lack of concern for the customer. >Yes, I did give you the correct move order! Yes, you did -- eventually. I'm not the only one who noticed the incorrect move order in your initial posts. But we digress. >However, >you were too busy wanting to prove me wrong to even see that. By the way, your >practice of deleting much of my post when replying is very deceptive indeed. You >did that quite a bit I must say. It's called "snipping". You should try it sometime. It prevents posts from becoming longer than Tolstoy's "War and Peace" and is considered standard netiquette. >> >Okay, Steve, I caused you so much grief, but ChessBase is absolutely perfect in >putting a product on the market with enough confusion and time wasted by >consumers that it doesn't bother you much at all - right? I mean you still work >for them, right? You haven't quit trying to explain all the problems associated >with Hiarcs. But that jerk Mel who once posted a f6 instead of fxg6...well...you >won't even look at his posting of moves ever again. Yes, we are all perfect just >like ChessBase. Interesting, yet hollow, rhetoric. Putting words into someone's else's mouth is not the best way to conduct a discussion. >Have you ever been wrong? Yes, and I admitted it as recently as 24 hours ago, as I'm sure you've seen. Your reasons for ignoring that admission are your own. >If so, should anyone ever listen to >you again? By that standard, no one should ever listen to anyone. Again, hollow rhetoric. I attempt to correct my mistakes when wrong, and I feel that I've done so in my correspondence with you. Again, go back and reread my posts. Again, Mel, I don't feel that I've been personally insulting to you at any time during our various conversations (other than a recent sig proclaiming myself to be a charter member of the "Mel Schwartz Confusion Club"). If I was as unconcerned with customers as you claim, I certainly could have been *very* insulting -- and I've received several e-mails from CCC readers encouraging me to "fight fire with fire". However, I've determined not to stray into this area. You don't appear to share these reservations, as *you* have certainly crossed the line into personal insult a number of times, as recently as the very post I've quoted above. You've graduated from insulting ChessBase as a company to insulting me personally. The fact is, Mel, you accuse me of some of the very things you're guilty of. You claim I've not answered your questions, when in fact I've done so a number of times, via phone, e-mail, and in this forum, and then you claim that I only read selected portions of your posts, when in fact you seem to have read very little of what I've written (seemingly the ONLY explanation for your repeated harping on the same issues that have already been covered). You say I was anxious to prove you wrong. This was a simple misunderstanding caused by a transpositional line in the Hiarcs opening book, and a misunderstanding for which I've already apologized (an apology which you've ignored). You've put words in my mouth. You've accused me of not caring about the consumer's problems, when the fact is that I've spent a considerable amount of my personal time in addressing not only your concerns but the concerns of other ChessBase sofware users in this very forum. You accuse me of not understanding your posts and you maintain that you've ALWAYS posted the correct move orders in the variations that have been troubling you, when in fact several other CCC readers have also posted that your original move orders were incorrect. You've also accused me of not responding to your posts concerning the specific lines from the opening book, when in fact I've done so on *multiple* occasions. If you're looking for my opinion on the positions themselves, you'll not get it -- I'm not interested in the old "what's your rating?" discredation tactic that you've displayed (and which stifles a lot of chess discussion on the 'Net -- there's currently a thread in rec.games.chess.analysis flaming a fellow who is rated 1417, but who frequently contributes interesting posts to discussions on specific positions; he's there answering "newbie" questions simply because many masters and GMs don't seem to feel that it's worth their time to answer them). I considered giving a detailed personal analysis of those positions you posted, but decided against it because I (correctly) anticipated your responses to those who dared disagree with your assessments. (Suffice to say, however, that I don't think they're as abysmal as you seem to think). If you go back and read the recent threads we've both participated in (as well as other recent threads here in CCC), you'll see that I've answered questions to everyone's satisfaction but yours. You maintain that I don't care about our customers -- if I didn't care, I wouldn't have (twice) offered you a refund on your purchase of Hiarcs7.32, nor would I have spent a great deal of my own time in attempting to satisfactorily answer your questions. In short, Mel, you seem to either be incapable of understanding my answers or (more likely) to just want to continue the argument for the sake of continuing the argument. I'm sorry, but life's too short for this. You purchased a program from the company for which I work -- this *certainly* doesn't give you the right to insult me personally, put words in my mouth, and make attempts to discredit the work I do (as you have so blatantly done in the post to which I'm now responding). When I returned to ChessBase USA late last year, my boss clearly laid out my responsibilities and obligations. Yes, I am to answer customer's questions. No, I am not obligated to take personal insults and abuse from said customers, nor waste time in endless, pointless polemics with people who seem to get off on such discourse. Several portions of your post that I've quoted above fall into the latter category, I'm afraid. In short, Mel, you've crossed the line. Again, if you are extremely dissatisfied with the product, I cordially invite you to return it for a refund. However, I'm not going to become your personal whipping boy, your latest hobby, and the target of your too-obvious trolls. I'm sorry it came to this, but since you can't discuss your problems with the product or attempt to get your point across without resorting to insult, sarcasm, and the very old, Larry Parr-like rhetorical trick of disagreeing with someone's position by trying to personally discredit them, I'm afraid our discourse is at an end. Finally, I'd like to offer my sincere personal apologies to the other members of CCC who've been subjected to this "debate" over the last several days. -- Steve Lopez
This page took 0.01 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.