Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 14:17:20 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 *************************************************** You forget here why you had to address those complaints - because this site was flooded with pleas for answers regarding, hash table info and tablebase information. ***************************************************** >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 -- ********************************************* No, I didn't deliberately do anything of the sort. It is very clear what you wrote. "Your own time"? You were complaining that you had wasted so much time with the f6 thing that it took time away from your other duties at work. ******************************************************* >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 ********************************** Having the wrong formula in the manual for hash tables is a big problem I would say. Also, there are other inaccuracies such as the info window in Hiarcs does not show hash table percentages a la Fritz - manual mistake number 2. However, the real killer is that hash table formula! 99%? Do you know that a consumer buying this program and looking at both the manual and program would only know what is written and what is on the program. That I believe counts for more than 1 %. ******************************** 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 ************************************* Do you know that I have received e-mail from people asking me questions about Hiarcs regarding the hash table and tablebase confusion? Sure it now is all much clearer, but how much time was wasted by consumers trying to find the answers before you cleared up the tablebase issue? And what about the hash table formula for Hiarcs - do you think I am the only one who questions this? By the way, I don't know why some people asked me questions about Hiarcs but didn't ask you even when I referred them to you. ***************************************** and since my recent >T-notes articles, the questions here in CCC have gone down to a mere trickle. ********************** Yes, and it's about time. Also, I have told you that I appreciate the work you do in your excellent column "T-Notes". ********************************************* > >> >>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 ************************************* Now, why should I have to go searching for him when you should have an easier time than me. I have inquired of ChessBase on other matters with many unanswered messages. Why don't you contact him and post the info here? **************************************************> >> >>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. *********************************** I have encountered much disagreement on this issue. The manual, as you know, does not mention either book. The booklet is rather vague on this issue. I have asked ChessBase and received conflicting answers. Furthermore, if there is no meaningful difference between the two books - why in Heaven's name would they include two books??? ************************************************> >> >>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 n ********************************** In your previous post to me - go take a look at it - you stated that you finally got the correct move from someone else! **************************************************** oticed 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 ***************************************** "Snipping" can sometimes mislead people. **************************************** 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. ************************************ You have put words in my mouth from the beginning! You insinuated that I added moves, didn't copy the tree correctly, and even when I told you I re-installed the program, you still insinuated that I wasn't doing it right. You never asked, Mel did you do this, or Mel how did you do that. ******************************** > >>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 ************************************* I only said that as an analogy for your comment about never checking a move order by me again. A quite reasonable statement in light of what you said. ************************************************** >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 ****************************** Yes, you have. When you said I didn't copy the tree correctly or added to the tree, that was insulting for you didn't ask, you merely assumed. To this day, Sarah still quotes that as being in another thread and thinks I actually did what you thought. That is like spreading false rumors about someone! *********************************** >during our various conversations (other than a recent sig proclaiming myself to >be a charter member of the "Mel Schwartz Confusion Club"). ************************* I have never seen a post where you proclaimed yourself a charter member...If indeed you did do, welcome! :-) ************************************************ 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 ************************************************** Politics is what I would call that. First, it is obvious you have a much higher stature here than I do. Just like Fernando's post about games by people - who cares what Joe Smith does against program X, but how would people respond to Kasparov against program X. Also, what are they encouraging you to fight for? I am fighting for the right of consumers to have proper instructions for their programs - I hope all those nice people who encourage you are pleased with the way Hiarcs 7.32 was marketed - and that certainly won't encourage ChessBase to be more considerate of their customers in the future, in my opinion. I believe that when a product is put out without a proper manual, the people responsible for that should be made aware that that is not tolerable and should be corrected in further releases. Also, the same holds true for bad opening lines in a program. If any are there, then the programmer should be made aware of that. *********************************************** 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. >******************************************** I have stated above how you insulted me! My insulting ChessBase, as you say here, is that because I stated facts about the problems associated with how they marketed Hiarcs 7.32? Facts, my dear fellow, facts. All one has to do is look back at all the confusion caused by what? *********************************************** >The fact is, Mel, you accuse me of some of the very things you're guilty of. ******************************* I don't feel guilty about anythng here. You set the wrong tone from your very first reply to a post of mine where you assumed rather tnan asked. ************************************************8 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 ********************************************** An apology I ignored? What did you expect me to do? Give you a kiss? What did I not do to give you that impression? Putting words in your mouth? You most certainly have put words in my mouth and caused me quite a bit of frustraton; for example, Sarah still believes I didn't have the opening book set-up correctly. She still quotes from the post where you "put words in my mouth" about the opening book thing. And others probably still think that as well. If you posted an open apology to all stating your mistake, well, that would have been different. However, as it stands, anyone not reading the one reply where you admit the mistake, would still believe what you originally stated. ******************************************************** 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 *********************************** I corrected the f6 to fxg6 as soon as I was informed of the error. ************************************ 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 **************************************** My original post was not directed at you! YOU chose to reply to my post. If you're not interested in the position, why did you reply? ************************************************* 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 ************************************************** You again are insulting my character here. You correctly anticipated my response is pure nonsense! The analysis of both positions by Fritz is I am slightly better. Hiarcs changes like the wind. I believe Hiarcs evaluaton of the score to be very biased. I say that based upon other games where I gave the identical position to Rebel 10, much better at evaluating the score, and found on every occasion Hiarcs gave itself a more favorable score than either Rebel or Fritz. Even in a dead draw, Hiarcs thought it was up 0.53 with all material even and a draw inevitable. It slowly came to reality. The other programs saw this well before Hiarcs. ***************************************************** 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 ************************************************** You only say that because you do not understand why I have cmplained about the manual or you don't understand why I posted the positions. I have never said I don't like the program. I complained about the way Hiarcs was marketed, I posted the positions to show what I believe bad play or poor choice of openings - this can happen with any program. If I didn't care enough about Hiarcs to want to see further versions improve the opening book, I would have said nothing. By the way, there ARE others who feel that Hiarcs opening book is bad or needs improvement. How come you never responded to Mark Young when he criticized the opening book in Hiarcs? Hmmm? ************************************************* >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 *************************************** I have dealt with this more than once above. All I'll say here is YOU HAVE PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH. ************************************************** 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. ************************************************ This is all your assessment of the situation to which I totally disagree. ************************************* > >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 ******************************************** Do you enjoy repeating yourself? It seems I've seen this comment about my returning the product before. The only line I crossed that made you respond to a post not directed at you was the way I criticized your employer. Again, all those who are pleased with the way Hiarcs was marketed can be silent, and when the next time a ChessBase product causes confusion, just tell yourself it's alright. ************************************************** >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. ************************************************** I can't get my point across? If you were interested in my point, did you ask what my point is? As far as your use of the word "rhetoric", I can say the same thing about you. Why in Heaven's name did you reply to my original post not directed at you? I didn't ask for your help. And you know if I wanted your help I could have called you or e-mailed you. I believe you replied because you wanted to defend your employer and discredit the enemy as you may have thought - just my "assessment" of this whole situation. ************************************************* >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. ************************************************* You didn't have to make it public. You could have e-mailed me and suggested we work this out between ourselves. I say that only because you are apologizing here for this public display of "rhetoric". My feeling is I believe you began this whole mess because you wanted to defend you know who, and you were anxious to to say what you did regarding the way I had the opening book installed rather than asking me specifically what I did. Oh, I forgot, you "assumed" I did it wrong. Mel (ChessBase enemy #1) Only kidding!!! ChessBase puts out excellent products. The problem is I believe the consumer needs the proper manual to make life easier and better use of what he or she has - without having to see a psychiatrist every week. :-) How do I do this, doctor? What does this mean doctor? I kept asking these questions and he kept telling me to ask ChessBase. I asked ChessBase and...well, I had to go back to my psychiatrist again! :-) Hello ChessBase - I like your Hiarcs 7.32 & Fritz 5.32 - please include the proper manuals in future versions. Thank you! Mel (ChessBase fan #1) Okay? Now, let's have the new Hiarcs, Fritz, Shredder, and Ferret? > >-- Steve Lopez
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.