Clover 7.1 - error

[chessica]

Huh, weird, will recheck asap, thx

I found the error, clover doesn't accept the path I provided, but it works in C:\syzygy.
But other engines accept my original path.

[Rebel]

Quite curious if anyone actually reads this guy posts.
Need to be one of a kind to do so probably because they are infinite array of meaningless ramblings and bs more or less.

Repeating ramblings yourself.

Boring in the meantime Viz.

We know it by now how you dislike Talkchess.

Try to be more constructive.

I know you can.

[jefk]

ok Guenther (although i'm your ignore list already apparently) and earlier 'rubichess',
although off topic here (clover) by now i can admit to have over reacted a little in
the end while i became fedup with the talks about what a 'proof' should be, informal
or computer assisted or not.
As far as i'm concerned the thread about 'proof' can be locked forever, coz it's simply beyond the
topic of computer chess. As someone in the new thread about opening theory already wrote, it's clear
from the www.chessdb.cn that there's no White advantage in chess . But then there also doesn't exist
any forced win for white (not even after the awesome Reti(*) 1.Nf3! whereby I still was planning to write
a -long- posting about that (so i'll probably abbreviate it and declare 1.Nf3 d5! = No need for a formal proof,
what so ever. And then a formal proof in NN (Neumann/Nash) style would anyway be impossible to comprehend
in most detailes for the majority of people in this forum (incl myself, i admit). Whereby if such experts would post
it here, they would be attacked by programmers, of a young(er) age (than me) or not (not really relevant),
that it's not a proof (because the Wiley proof also "was incorrect" etc etc). It really has become a preposterous
discussion and i went off topic. Programming can be a interesting (and lucrative) profession but doesn't make
someone a theoretical mathematician. Fifteen years a go i met an (Irish or English) IT consultant here who presented
himself as being an IT 'insultant'. How applicable (having worked briefly as information analist in the past with a bad
experience -with a manager- i already then found this a funny comment); this forum made me recollect it
in my memory. Some programmers here (mr viz) apparently are well known:
https://www.chessprogramming.org/Michael_Chaly
others (felman) not, at least not by me (and by now i'm happy to keep it that way)

Have a nice weekend.

(*) www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/82z8w9/ ... ?rdt=54548

[chessica]

I looked at version 7.0 - it shows correctly. I think the lower dash is not needed and instead of tb_hits it should be written tbhits in the engine code.

This should be noticeable when compiling with an error message.

Nonsense. (you just rename a variable and/or ascii output consistently => no errors)

Well, I had this idea before you posted. It didn't require your insulting comment.
You should also remove your insulting signature. Please think about it.
I could also create one with the heading: Which posters insult the members here most often.

Again, think about it and improve.

Obviously you have no idea about what is an insult or not. I could link to some real ones.
If someone, who has no clue about the field he is talking about spreads nonsense, we just call it nonsense, that's the way it is... sure it could be worded stronger as a real insult, but there is no need and it's not my style. (try harder to find any insults)

Actually your post could be seen as an insult to Clovers author, who chose to ignore you.

Your posts prove my signature each and every day and it is a mirror of the decay and just plain truth. Everyone knows it.

Please read this again:

Post by Guenther » Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:58 pm