Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:42:46 06/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1998 at 14:26:59, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >On June 15, 1998 at 13:17:45, Mark Young wrote: > >>When they use this as an analogy, at best it s a smoke screen, and at worst it >>shows how little they do understand about the theory s they use as an analogy. >>It just makes them look silly. > >I don't think it is necessary to get into relativity to make sense out of it, >it's just a matter of converting something tangible into something intangible in >order to convert it back, with interest, later. > >bruce Except I don't personally believe there is any 'conversion' going on. IE if you sac a pawn, to get it back "with interest" later... either you didn't really sacrifice it in the first place (it was a long-term tactical shot) or else your opponent blundered. But there is no way to sac a pawn, and then get it back later, if this is not tactically forced... It's just dropping a pawn... Conservation of mass and energy is not the same thing at all, particularly knowing that we can not currently convert from energy back to matter again, otherwise we'd have the startrek transporter system up and running.
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.