bob wrote:You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...
If that is the case, what is wrong with that?
Miguel
Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???
Just disingenuous...
Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.
Miguel
First, the "word"
disengenuous
Adjective: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Seems to fit PERFECTLY. I didn't just choose a "big word" out of thin air. ChessBase claimed the questions came only from ChessBase staff. Ed stated he had nothing to do with it.
Word seems PERFECTLY appropriate to me. Apparently you don't have a dictionary handy? Or you missed Ed's prior statements feigning (hope you understand THAT word) no knowledge?
Your statement certainly was "ridiculous".
To recapitalize:
1. Your sentiment is that Ed is clearly "disingenuous", but also clearly not "wrong". As apparently there are grades of dishonesty and Ed's is on the acceptable side as far as you are concerned.
2. Miguel's bewilderment of these differences as a non-native speaker is "ridiculous".
3. Scrolling through the very same thread we see gems like this:
bob wrote:Apparently your ignorance shares something with the "universe". It is unbounded.
4. And such addressing is absolutely appropriate coming from a moderator.
All I can wish is that Miguel won't ever grow into such hyper-aggressive attitude once elected, and that you will finally find ways to direct your energy into improving Crafty again.
Damir wrote:Whether or not Vasik used Fruit codes is unsolved. There are debates for, and there are debates against, so what's to believe.
I think it is too easy to say he used Fruit codes and leave it at that, because it is the easiest, more logical thing to do, and hereby condemn him beforehand.
Should we rely on ICGA's version who consists of Vas competitors who btw are commercial, or on Ed, Chris and others version who are studying the code and are trying to compare the differences and similarities between the two programs ?
16 people voted. I believe that only 3 were potential "competitors", that is, affiliated with a commercial computer chess program. So how does 3 out of 16 match up with your statement? What about the other 13 who are not competitors, some of which have been inactive in computer chess for 20+ years???
Let's recap, you made an accusation, in response you were given a look into a private discussion and now you bombard that as feigned?
That's pretty confusing.
I was not given a look into any "private discussion." I was asked to assist David (along with several others) with technical aspects that were addressed by "Friedel's questions" (quote for obvious reasons.)
You implied you had no involvement. Then, when directly addressed by me, you again implied the same with the "You give me too much credit" statement. And then you admit that you wrote a question. I a certain you wrote more for reasons previously given...
In short, "you pretended to know less about a subject than you actually knew" because you knew you had actively participated in composing the questions, yet implied you did not." Perfect definition of "disingenuous"
bob wrote:You guys were feeding Friedel questions. Absolutely no doubt. The SAME questions, using the same improper words that were posed on RF multiple times. Give it a rest...
If that is the case, what is wrong with that?
Miguel
Did anybody say anything was "wrong" with that???
Just disingenuous...
Yes, you, right now, are saying that is disingenuous. That is ridiculous.
Miguel
First, the "word"
disingenuous
Adjective: Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Seems to fit PERFECTLY. I didn't just choose a "big word" out of thin air. ChessBase claimed the questions came only from ChessBase staff. Ed stated he had nothing to do with it.
Word seems PERFECTLY appropriate to me. Apparently you don't have a dictionary handy? Or you missed Ed's prior statements feigning (hope you understand THAT word) no knowledge?
Your statement certainly was "ridiculous".
To recapitalize:
1. Your sentiment is that Ed is clearly "disingenuous", but also clearly not "wrong". As apparently there are grades of dishonesty and Ed's is on the acceptable side as far as you are concerned.
2. Miguel's bewilderment of these differences as a non-native speaker is "ridiculous".
3. Scrolling through the very same thread we see gems like this:
bob wrote:Apparently your ignorance shares something with the "universe". It is unbounded.
4. And such addressing is absolutely appropriate coming from a moderator.
All I can wish is that Miguel won't ever grow into such hyper-aggressive attitude once elected, and that you will finally find ways to direct your energy into improving Crafty again.
Will you please learn to read?
The "not wrong" meant, in small words, "It was not WRONG for him to supply questions to Friedel." SO there was nothing wrong with his doing that. It was certainly "wrong" to imply he had nothing to do with the questions, even though he did... that is "disingenuous.
I do not plan on learning to "read between the lines" if someone is a non-native English speaker. This is, and has been, an "English-speaking forum." I assume people mean what they write, and only what they write. Ditto goes for me.
Damir wrote:Whether or not Vasik used Fruit codes is unsolved. There are debates for, and there are debates against, so what's to believe.
I think it is too easy to say he used Fruit codes and leave it at that, because it is the easiest, more logical thing to do, and hereby condemn him beforehand.
Should we rely on ICGA's version who consists of Vas competitors who btw are commercial, or on Ed, Chris and others version who are studying the code and are trying to compare the differences and similarities between the two programs ?
16 people voted. I believe that only 3 were potential "competitors", that is, affiliated with a commercial computer chess program. So how does 3 out of 16 match up with your statement? What about the other 13 who are not competitors, some of which have been inactive in computer chess for 20+ years???
An outsider can reverse the question: why where those "3" needed when there were that many others at hand?
Either those "3" were indispensable, but then the others don't matter other than confirm the findings and bump up the vote count. A sign of weakness by itself. Or the "3" wouldn't bring in anything additional crucial know-how and could have been easily recused. A sign of strength.
Would the investigation outcome be different without the "3"...?
Removal of any hint of impartiality is such a valuable first step with big dividends. It would have saved the fora of hundreds of messages about that sub-topic alone, everyone's effort spent on some more constructive endeavors for example.
