Author: blass uri
Date: 22:39:01 06/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 11, 2000 at 01:35:16, blass uri wrote: >On June 10, 2000 at 21:07:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 10, 2000 at 18:43:57, blass uri wrote: >> >>>On June 10, 2000 at 08:28:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>>You know very well why you were censored. You made the direct claim, here in >>>>CCC, that I specifically wrote crafty so that if it was getting mated, it would >>>>sit and run out of time rather than letting the opponent mate me. >>> >>>The cases discussed was about losing on time in a drawn position. >>>I remember that Amir admitted that he did a bad job in explaining himself. >>> >>>He meant to criticize crafty's behaviour against computers and meant to >>>criticize the fact that you did not look for the game to see the reason for the >>>fact that crafty lost on time in the position that it has nothing to lose from >>>it but he did not mean to say the direct claim that you and some other people >>>understood. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>all he had to do was post a one line explanation... >> >>I don't remember losing on time in a drawn position. I don't see how that would >>be considered "abusive". It would be considered "stupid". not moving when >>getting mated could be considered abusive, but losing a drawn game by not moving >>seems to be a long way from that... > >The point is that the game was drawn when crafty lost on time because Junior had >only a bishop. > >I do not remember that Amir complained that Crafty lost on time instead of >getting mated. > >The fact is that crafty lost on time instead of draing in another way and it was >because of a bug. > >Uri The bug was corrected and I believe that the fact that Amir reacted in the way he reacted is also because of the fact that he did not like the fact that the discussion was not about the real problem. Uri
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.