Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:06:11 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 08:58:30, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >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 Can you define anti comp play? I'd be willing to play if I knew what are you talking about. José C.
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.