Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 09:17:09 01/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2000 at 10:57:38, Harald Faber wrote: >>It was not me using bad language or insulting. it was harald. >Not one word. right. exactly. not one word. >Show me one. your messages has been deleted. i guess you know why. or do you forget what you have written? >No? Let me remind you. YOU wrote: >1. you let the new versions play against older versions of the same >program , or let the same program play on fast machines against >slower machines. thats nonsense. right. so which wort insults ?? and whom ? >HF: Very friendly words. it's within the ranges of a free-speech. i do have a point, and i value it. i do not say nonsense alone. >2. you don't delete the doubles ! here you even count 12x the same opening !!! >HF: Only 3 exclamation marks, nice of you. i have never seen somebody playing 12 times the same stuff in my life. so why NOT using 3 exclamation marks for this. it's unique IMO to play 12 games and to USE them for measuring elo. it says IMO much about the people doing it. and it says much about how scientifical they work :-)) shall they play 500 times this game. if this satisfies them. who knows ? >3. you only let the new programs play against new other software >(or - as stupid, see point 1). But you never test against a big >variety of programs on same fast hardware. > >therefore your results are ot serious. > >die schwedische eloliste ist nicht mehr das was sie einmal war. >the autoplayers have not only brought us advantages. it seems >they had very negative effects on you. >"...very negative effects on you." this says that using the autoplayer makes the people unable to feel that WHAT they count is not making any sense. do you believe if they would have to play the games by hand, they would have played the game 12 times again ?? so my point is: the autoplayer has made them shallow. and this is a negative effect in my opinion. when i am doing something 12 times again, without recognizing that i am not doing anything serious anymore, i would say i have done something wrong. >Stress is "... ON YOU" which goes definitely into the personal direction. So what is the insult harald. the word negative ?? the word very ? i mean- what is the insulting word ? or image behind the words ? >Indeed a normal, CONSTRUCTIVE and not insulting or offending post. right. a constructive post. >Maybe you like to answer my questions you haven't answered yet: >1. Which of the both programs is old in your opinion, Junior6 or Tiger 12? why shall i answer you questions that have nothing to do with what i posted. YOU believe i did refer to the junior-tiger games in all my 3 points. i did not referred to it. why shall i now answer to a question that comes from a wrong conclusion in your mind ? >2. How do you call a guy falling 20 times into the same trap again and again? its not the question if i would call such a guy stupid or not. the question is if this really measures the chess-strength in elo ! i do not believe this measures chess-strength. you may believe it. >And the hardware issue, you seem to have no good memory, was answered many >times. So why do you ask the same question again and again? because it remains wrong. let them test all programs on 450 and ok with me. IMO they do often not measure chess strength but something different.
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.