Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:15:09 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2000 at 00:01:34, Havergal Brian wrote: >On January 09, 2000 at 23:40:42, Mark Young wrote: > >>On January 09, 2000 at 23:00:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 2000 at 22:13:03, Marc Plum wrote: >>> >>>>On January 09, 2000 at 17:43:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>(snips) >>>> >>>>>Kasparov is in ChessBase's pocket. However, from this point forward, since >>>>>we are going to continue to see this, I believe that I will simply choose to >>>>>say that "no more crafty versions will be available for ChessBase products". >>>>> >>>>>If it is so bad, they really don't need it anyway. If I see any future versions >>>>>on their web site, I will let my attorney do the talking. >>>> >>>>Obviously, you are entitled to do whatever you want with your program. I >>>>appreciate your making this excellent program available for free. It's nicer, >>>>IMHO, to use it in the ChessBase playing interfaces than within Winboard, but >>>>thanks for making it available as long as you have. >>>> >>>>That being said, I'm not sure why you seem to be blaming ChessBase for what this >>>>Dutch amateur said on Kasparov's web page. Is there more information you could >>>>share that makes this clearer? >>>> >>>>Marc Plum >>> >>> >>>No... And I am much less concerned now. I had been sent a copy of excerpts >>>that seemed to imply that it was a chessbase or kasparov-like article. Now I >>>see the actual author, and don't really care what his opinion is. If you read >>>the article slowly and carefully, it looks idiotic anyway. I'd have to have >>>my name on the 'byline'... >> >>Glad to hear it, I was really confused how you were coming to some of your >>conclusions in your first post. I did not find the article anti-crafty, but you >>are correct it is a poorly written article with little value pro or con about >>any chess program. >> >>I would have thought you would have read the original article before jumping to >>conclusions...but mistakes happen. > > > >I am amazed that you did not find the article to be "anti-crafty". How about >reading the article again and concentrate on the top few paragraphs. I read the article, it has a paragraph giving the author's observation of crafty 16.6. His observations are accurate in regards to Crafty 16.6 on a single processor. To make out the article as anti-crafty or venomous or the use of other such words is nonsense.
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.