Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 10:14:20 09/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 1999 at 11:42:17, Shep wrote:
>>:-)) we will see what the programmer says afterwards :-))
The programmer said to me:
"The "programmer" says that 2.50 is a chess program developers only sampler
version and is not
an upgrade to cst2 for general purpose use. This is made clear on the web site
(well, I think it is
clear). We have reason to believe that 2.50 is generally broken, especially in
the style
department, Thorsten gets poor game results with it and the style of play is
disappointing. Valid
end user upgrades are 2.01, 2.02 and 2.03. I have no problem with Shep making a
tournament
including cst2.0x, but he shouldn't, and it isn't realistic to use 2.50 if he
wants to get sensible
results.
Ultimately however, I don't really care either way. All that seems to happen is
that dumb people like to
argue about it on the "my atari is better than your amiga" basis. This wasn't my
idea for what would
happen by releasing the program, nor by providing upgrades. Probably better in
general to stop making
cstal versions, no joy in it for me anymore, and the general public, if ccc is
anything to go by, don't
deserve any little gem in the desert in any case. Seems they only want to kill
the little gems.
Bye.
Chris"
>Essentially the same as you ("2.50 broken"), but he is clever enough to know
>it's no use getting into a "no permission to publish" discussion with me. :)
Aha - so you are "very clever" too !
Brilliant. this is what we need. more people testing unlicenced and broken
versions.
>As I said, if I am able to confirm 2.50 is indeed broken, I will put a footnote
>in the respective tournament page (as I did with MChess 8 in SC 98 III where I
>used a setting which was classified as "experimental" by Marty).
Why did you download this version ?
Why ?
I mean: you download something without reading the text on the web-site ??
You plan and use a version without permission in a tournament
and don't read the text while downloading it ??
That does not seem much precise to me !
>You should remember that people with an own mind never do slavishly what they're
>told. :)
Aha. thats your kind of showing MIND in this discussion.
I have put sugar in the tank said the guy to the car-mechanician.
"You should remember that people with an own mind never do slavishly
what they are told" :-)
>And that freaks just do anything when they experiment. :))
If you do experiment, please let cstal out.
This kind of faked data is not what i am interested in.
>I think the basic point is the question: will 2.03 and 2.50 differ
>significantly?
oh men. the guy has indeed "a mind".
Of course they differ significantly. that can be seen from the games
played. But how should YOU know this. You don't know the program.
you only play as blind as you download and thats your kind of transfer
work coming from your mind.
>If that is the case, I will need no further proof which version
>is weaker but simply accept Chris' (and your) statement it is broken.
this could have been a decision sensibly done before the tournament
by asking me or chris. could.
>I was under the impression that the actual engine did not change, therefore I
>used 2.50 (because I didn't want two otherwise identical copies sitting on my
>disk). If the 2.03 -> 2.50 difference is more than just slight speed differences
>caused by the new engine concept, I am willing to accept that my decision was
>wrong.
Aha. he has a mind :-)
>Shep "Anti-Tarzan" :-)
I see Bo Derek has brought some culture under your kind of guys.
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.