Author: Randall Shane
Date: 05:14:22 07/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 2000 at 18:28:48, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On July 21, 2000 at 18:15:26, Randall Shane wrote: > >>On July 21, 2000 at 17:46:03, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >> >>>How about you name one single eval term that would be extremely difficult to >>>implement given DB's design? >>> >>>... >>> >>>What? You can't name one term? That shows that: >>>A) you don't know very much about DB's design at all >>>B) you haven't even thought about it very hard >> >>Why are you asking Robert to prove your case against him for you? > >He is welcome to answer my question. If he gives some intelligent answer, e.g., >"it would be very hard for DB to have term x because of y," then it shows that >he knows a lot about DB and that I'm wrong. But I don't think that's likely. > >-Tom Hmm. As stated elsewhere in this thread, Robert isn't aware of any such terms, and given that he's reasonably familiar with computer chess and evaluation, he believes that there are no such terms. You believe that there are such terms. When asked for any, however, you demand that Robert produce them for you. Lovely dilemma there (if he accepts it) -- if he produces a term which is difficult, then he's proved your argument against him, and if he doesn't, then he's ... ignorant? No, can't quite derive that from your post. But you would say he's certainly lacking in knowledge about DB. Do you see the problem here? I think it would help your case if you came up with the evidence, instead.
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.