Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 05:58:30 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 08:41:16, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On November 08, 2001 at 08:33:09, Jonas Cohonas wrote: > >>I said the requirements of the challenge was objective, not that the definition >>of anti comp play was clearly defined objectively!! > >If you by requirements mean conditions, then you clearly listed "no anti-comp" >play as a condition. So the requirements cannot be said to be objective. Unless >you by requirement means conditions minus "no anti-comp play" ;-). > >Regards, >Mogens And i could say: if your wordplay was what i said ( transformed into your words) then you are right, but the objective was: can anyone beat one of the best progs at 40/120 on fast hardware, without anti comp play? The term anti comp is there for a reason and most people know what i am talking about when i say anti comp. Actually conditions as a term is quite subjective and requires some willingness to accept that the conditions might not be ones own defenition, everything is relative even when attemted to be put into perspective mogens ;) Regards Jonas
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.