Author: Albert Silver
Date: 06:11:24 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
>You again! You know what I think about you. In free usenet you lost all "games"
>but before you had to sign your loss officially you chickened out.
Very funny. It was quite the opposite and you insistently changed the subject
everytime your arguments ran out of fuel. Bob no doubt remembers as he was a
participant.
I will never
>forget that. Here we have a different situation. Here you are not allowed to
>insult (well - you might still be because you belong to the untouchables...).
>You claim you know GM. Fine for you. You mean you also understand them? Tatata.
Understand them? The issue is how they prepare and not whether or not I
understand them. I described what I know, that is all. So did Bob for that
matter. You want to believe that all GMs only play moves they have studied in
great depth for themselves, but you are wrong, that's all.
>
>Your mean way of disputing is clear. You called me naive. Ok, not a direct
>insult, but here in the question where already Bob was proven to be wrong, you
>show up and want to make an easy shot and win. But as I said, you won't "win" a
>dispute not in a life time in my present. And I will show you how primitive and
>logically uneducated you reasoned here again.
>
>Look, Bob, who also knows many GM, even Wchamps like Botvinnik, believes that GM
He doesn't believe, he knows. Don't confuse belief with knowledge.
>- and he said that in a dispute with me to make the point that comps, when they
>use foreign data WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING IT RESP. WITHOUT EVEN BEING ABLE TO
>UNDERSTAND IT, they just do what human GM do all the time here and there -
>played down a line, they
>
>a) did get from foreign sources without even checking, just by memorizing and
>
>b) without further checking during the game.
>
>I refutated this nonsense.
No, you didn't. You just said he was wrong. That's hardly a refutation. You say
this because you clearly can't believe it. I understand, but the facts are those
all the same.
>
>Now you should already see where the key error is in your presentation above.
>You simply jump on me as if my former statement would be the complete version of
>my refutation (of Bob's theory). You jump on me and declare pompously that you
>knew GM and they would rely on their talents in the game. Did I doubt that?
>
>You know GM and perhaps you also heard some stories,
No, I didn't hear stories, I saw this happen many times. You can argue all you
like, but it won't make your beliefs true. Bob said it and it's true. I saw it
myself and know it for fact. There is nothing subject to discussion in this.
Albert
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.