Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:00:35 10/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 15, 2000 at 22:41:31, Christophe Theron wrote: >>This is so inherently dangerous it is obvious. Just because you _believe_ >>you can walk on water doesn't make it so. You had better _know_... If you >>are only 10 feet from shore, you might not drown. In the middle of the Pacific, >>you had better be _certain_ you can walk... >Now I understand better what Chris Whittington calls "the Hyatt paradigm". :) > >I'm sorry, I never thought I would one day share CW's point of view, but you are >pushing me in that direction... > >Gambit Tiger was not certain that 43.Rc6 was winning. Actually it might even >turn out that this move is incorrect. I don't know. > >And you know what? I DON'T CARE. > >The only thing that matters is that the opponent has been UNABLE to show it was >incorrect. > >That's where computer chess finally meets human chess. > >If your program can't swim, then I guess it's better for it to stay close to the >shore. > >Mine is learning how to swim. There are sexy girls on the islands, I guess he >wants to go there. ;) > > > > Christophe Sexy girls on an island - he ?! :-))) NOW i know what is the force that directs YOU and CHRIS to learn to swim. the sexy girls. don´t forget that chris has at least 6 children :-))) so the girls are the power that will break bobs paradigm :-)) interesting :-))) - - - will have to tell my girl friend about ...
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.