Author: Alvaro Rodriguez
Date: 13:09:44 08/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2000 at 16:06:29, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On August 07, 2000 at 15:45:06, blass uri wrote: > >>"when questions about crafty is asked ....moderators (some) requests to use the >>crafty mailing list. ( yesh i know crafty has a mailing list and CM doesnt). but >>if you really look around there are ATMOST 5 peoples who are actually interested >>in CM book or anything regarding it. But there are literally 100s of people who >>are interested in crafty questions." >> >>You can see the words ATMOST 5 peoples > >Yes, I missed that one, but it really doesn't change anything about your remark. > >>If you look at the posts that should be allowed than the fact that 5 >>participants should be allowed prove that more than 5 should be allowed but does >>not prove nothing about the cases of less than 5. > >The upper bound is unimportant because we're talking about participation. But >your statement, whether you like it or not, introduces a lower limit. > >>The same logic is for mate. >> >>The fact that the program found that there is a mate in at most 5 moves proves >>that there is a mate in at most 6 moves but does not prove if there is or there >>is not a mate in 4 moves or less than 4 moves. > >That isn't a relevant comparison because of your statement. The interpretation >about less than five participants is clear, so the mate argument doesn't really >help all that much. Because you _did_ imply that threads with less than 5 >participants shouldn't be allowed by saying that 5 or more should be allowed. >There's only allowed or not allowed. Nothing inbetween. > >Best wishes... >Mogens By saying participants, you mean people following the thread too ? Regards, Alvaro
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.