Author: Chessfun
Date: 20:42:04 10/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 22:45:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >No it didn't. I was incorrect about playing gambit tiger. I was _not_ >incorrect about playing beta tiger, as you claimied I was. I gave you >some players with a total game count of > 100, each of which was claiming >to be "beta tiger" (I even supplied names for the ones in my logs, which only >go back a few days.) This will be my last post on this subject, I leave other to decide where the truth lies. Hurrrayyy they all cheer. Ok first and foremost Dr. you named 4 players. I posted their finger note indicating that three were not Beta's but original Tiger's. You then returned a while later with claims of playing various Guest accounts, that up to this point you did not know of. Therefore negating your claim of having _SEEN_ HUNDREDS_ of Beta Tiger games. >My hundreds did not change at all. Except that I didn't play many vs gambit >tiger, which was definitely a misunderstanding on my part. And if you noticed this misunderstanding on _your_ part. You could have at anytime simply stated so, however you choose not to and continued to argue the HUNDREDS of games. Even resorting to the games played by clones, which obviously you didn't watch again negating your I have _SEEN_. >But let's keep going. I explained why some don't kibitz. and why some >don't expose their interface. You said "that can't be done AFAIK". That >was wrong. No. You did state the kibitz issue, and I did state AFAIK that can't be done. Even going as far as to on the last post state that I would take your word on that subject. That is not to say that you played them since if they didn't kibitz you would not know. I know...HUNDREDS messaged you. But please remember there are only some 20ish people with the program and some three or four who are using ICC. >I don't particularly like being called "wrong" when I am not. I made a >statement about playing hundreds of games vs beta tiger. 200 would be >enough to make that correct. I had records for over 100 for absolute >certain, and those were over a short time-period. You offered _no_ proof >of any kind to refute my statement. yet you want to maintain it is wrong. >And then you take issue when I zing you for making such statements. When your wrong your wrong, two hundred is not HUNDREDS and you know it. Two hundred is a couple of hundred and AFAIK you only referenced even with your guest kibitz's 87. The proof is simply in the reading and the writing. >Grow up. If you have proof of something, offer it. Otherwise simply but >out. Another beauty.....boy what a mouth you have. >I originally said that beating GM Mecking was no big deal. I stand by that >100%. As would anybody else that visits ICC for any length of time. I said >that gambit tiger didn't seem to be attacking "me" at all. I was generally >wrong there as it was the normal beta tiger. However, after a few games by >albert, I didn't see any attacks at all. You can ask him for details. GM Mecking is a legend plain and simple, he has played no more than two dozen games ever on ICC and for many seeing the game was a big deal. You neglect Chess history in your thought process and simply see it as you said as an Old GM. You played Albert with Gambit after the thread stated when you reinstated Albert's account. So I have no need to ask him. >I don't pop off about games I know nothing about. I _watch_ them. _you_ >don't. You talk about "all the gambit tiger operators" and call those >"gambit tiger". When I mention watching singacrafty playing a beta tiger, >you go "haha... that isn't crafty" or some such. No Dr. Sorry again. You said you had watched them play Crafty it was much laster when you turned this into all others running crafties.....after probably another 15 posts. I do watch as well as play and have watched many games. Naturally I check results of all the beta's it's just something I do..... Oh..yes...and I do it very very well/ >Now, offer 'facts' or 'silence'. I will be happy with either. But not >statements made in ignorance, or speculation, or "AFAIK" which doesn't >impress me one little bit. None of my statements have been designed nor intended to impress you. I have offered facts all along, at every step whenever you posted. I do not speculate nor speak from ignorance but thanks again for your nice polite words, a real gentleman. >>which turned into "pretty close to reality"... >>which turned into "all the others that are running Crafty as well"... > >Didn't turn into _anything_. I _clearly_ said "I have watched crafty play ..." >Do you dispute that singacrafty is crafty? that "data" is crafty? If so, >which one specific tiger beta account do you call "tiger beta"? Aha. All of >them? You know as well as the readers of this thread as well as I that was not what you meant. You also know as well as everyone else that if you had meant that you would have said it initially instead of later when it suited your argument. Any account using ANY beta Tiger is naturally beta Tiger. The difference is in your claim as outlined above as you well know. >> >>As for your confusion, you never at any point said >>"Oh I am *wrong* I made a *mistake*" or any such statement. > >Yes I did and if you look back you will find it. I clearly said that I had >assumed that "gambit tiger" was a nickname for beta tiger, and that they were >one in the same. Until Christophe pointed out it was newer than the time-frame >I mentioned. And I am sure you must have acknowledged being *wrong* or making a *mistake* at that point......oppss you forgot. >If you walk thru the thread, you will see that I have admitted this on >_multiple_ occasions. So much for your giving "facts". I have looked at every thread. Aside from this issue is the simple claim of HUNDREDS and the later claim to include all Clones in this. >>And regardless of my statements, you simply cannot stand an opposite >>or conflicting opinion without resorting to personal insults. >> >>Sarah. > >Right. I simply don't like being called a liar, by someone that is ignorant >of important details. Did I use the word "Liar" if so I apologize...Maybe a better word would be inflator of truth....or teller of stories...whichever you prefer is fine with me. Sarah.
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.