Author: Jonas Cohonas
Date: 06:13:13 11/08/01
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2001 at 09:06:11, José Carlos wrote: >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. The question is not if i can define anti comp play, but if anyone here following a known mainline that leads to some equality, can beat one of the top 5 progs in 40/120 conditions (on fast hardware) for example: would you be willing to play a comp using the first 3 moves of Ruy Lopez under the above mentioned conditions? Regards Jonas
This page took 0 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.