Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 01:12:51 07/04/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 04, 1999 at 01:20:50, Steve Lopez wrote: >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 Thanks! Sune
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.