Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 06:31:19 02/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2003 at 09:11:24, Albert Silver wrote: > >>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. Dream on. My arguments running out of fuel? Please do not confuse your perception with my talents. How could you judge my qualities without a minimum of logic? > >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. Can you reason with some logic? With understad I didn't mean that you should understand the chess. I was talking about their prep too. Look, even IF you were a GM yourself, fine, but then if you did it the way youpretended here, then you would be a real weak GM. A joke GM. > >> >>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. Please be polite and resist spreading lies. Imade my point in rgcc at the time. > >> >>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 Sure, if you run out of arguments you still have military solutions. Very telling. You might KNOW GM but you don't understand them. Of course you needed the snip of all I wrote about 'repertoire'. I never took you for serious. Plese leave this thread aside, the GM question is just a side aspect. Rolf Tueschen P.S. Iwant to make the point that you either participate in the debate or you step out but you can't snip around, make up a case and enter mud. I won't follow you.
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.