Author: Chessfun
Date: 11:48:31 05/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2000 at 11:12:35, tony worsman wrote: > >The concept was interesting, the work you put into testing >is admirable, im sure many would agree with that point, >but the clinical conditions needed to draw any worthwhile >conclusions were missing Sorry, but you are wrong. The conditions are/were as clinical as possible. I dare say not much difference between what I was doing and how the SSDF test. >>From: Chessfun >>Message Number: 109122 >>Date: May 04, 2000 at 18:45:32 >>It is a shame that IP's cannot be part of all posts that way >>at least we would know who is who and it would to some part >>decrease trolls like this thread. > >My post certainly wasnt a troll, ok the heavy sarcasm >was perhaps unwarranted, The crafty comment, the pet-catz..... quote "ok the heavy sarcasm was perhaps unwarranted" oh really. And if only "perhaps unwarrented" then what warrented it. Nothing.....therefore the definition given a troll was correct. >ps. hmmmmm could you Hmmm send me your pgn files. (worth >a try :-0 ) Send me an email requesting them, then I'll send them. Thanks.
This page took 0.01 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.