Author: Melvin S. Schwartz
Date: 14:49:13 07/05/99
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 manual and CD both have the incorrect formula for hash tables. ________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________ I think it would be easier for you to contact Matthias 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. ___________________________________________ The reason for having two books should be explained in the manual, or the booklet. The booklet is quite vague on this as I'm sure you are aware. If someone had not purchased a previous version of Fritz (me) how could one understand the little info supplied which is really non-specific? ______________________________ >> >>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 p ___________________________ Snipping can sometimes mislead people. :) _________________________________________ revents 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 _____________________________ You insulted me when you first responded to my initial post by insinuating that I was adding to the tree and or loading the book incorrectly. ____________________________________________ >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. __________________________ You have insulted me - see above. As for ChessBase - they should be held accountable for the way Hiarcs was marketed. ______________________________________________ > >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 have put words in my mouth - see above. ______________________ >You've accused me of not caring about the consumer's problems, when the fact is _____________________ Show me where I said you don't care about consumer's problems? ___________ >that I've spent a considerable amount of my personal time in addressing not only ______________________ And I've spent a lot of time replying to you. _____________________________________ >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 ________________________________ So now you are a Prophet? You are insulting me when you say that I cannot be disagreed with intelligently. That is pure nonsense. Speaking of "rhetoric". __________________________________ >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) _______________________________ Do you enjoy repeating yourself? See above on this issue. ______________________________________ 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 __________________________ I would like you to show all where it is here that you can substantiate the claim you make above? ____________________________________________ >(more likely) to just want to continue the argument for the sake of continuing ____________________ I think that's what you're doing. I think this whole thing by you is an attack on me. You started that by the insinuations you made in your response to my original post. ______________________________________________ >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. ____________________________ Thanks for the nice words. The truth as I see it, is you are going after the one who has criticized your company. I believe that's what made you reply to my original post - you saw an opportunity and seized it. Since when did you reply to questions about positions here? You chose my post because you saw an opportuity to get the one giving ChessBase a hard time. Yes, that is what I believe all this is about. You have not been friendly at all from the very beginning of when you first replied. All this nonsense about your answers and me not understanding them is pure nonsense. You write well - and very effectively. However, what has any of this to do with my original post? And why shouldn't I be angry about your blatant allegations of what I did to the tree. If you told me specifically what problem with the move list you had, I would have gladly given you the correction. You did not supply that info even when I asked you for it. Mel > >-- 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.