Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 08:52:11 10/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 16:01:14, Mogens Larsen wrote: >No, this time it's just conclusions based on no facts whatsoever. Not exactly an >improvement. all i see mogens is, that YOU have no facts, and therefore cannot make ANY conclusion, cause you dont have the program. So i dont really see how you will find out which "conclusion" is more real than your hear-said. I find your behaviour here - to say it polite - very harsh. you have nothing than your mind, and throw wild allegations into the night. what is the base of your critics ? nothing. so why are you so aggressive and IMO near the limit that is allowed in this forum. why don`t you just calm down a little and just try to be a little nicer. you dont have to read our posts if you dont like them. >Actually it's something of an insult that you can support someone like Thorsten >degrading all other computer chess programs on the basis of this particular >move. Maybe you've adopted the attitude of CW as well. Propaganda and insult is >quite an achievement in one thread. Maybe you should lower your tone and calm down a little. nobody "degraded" anybody. We are talking here in this forum. Insult and "propaganda" is maybe a feature that is more used in YOUR "almighty forum dedicated to everything". >I seem to have find somone even better at displaying arrogance than myself. Sometimes a mirror helps, directly helt towards your nose :-))) >1) The sac isn't a !! move by any stretch of the imagination. your imaginations seems to be very limited, can this be ?! >2) It was used to prove that the Gambit Tiger approach is the only way to go, >which there isn't any evidence to support. it was used to show that gambit-tiger plays different than other programs. do you have a program finding Rc6 ? >3) General insult to all programs that doesn't follow this approach. INSULTS ?? how can you insult a program ?? Maybe this is a language problem. What concrete is the insult ? Complain to the moderators if i have insulted a program :-))) >4) General ignorance about how other programs operate to ensure that your >approach seem novel. ?!?! oh man - this is not your day, true ?! >5) Uninformed argumentation almost throughout the thread by Thorsten. uninformed argumentation ?! what is uninformed argurmentation. the only person i see uninformed doing uninformed argument is YOU. you speak in big words without having more than hear-said. >If I read the thread again, I could probably find more. i am sure someone like YOU will find whatever he searches. :-))) > I suggest you do the >same and revise your opinion about the "objectivity" displayed by the members of >your team. OBJECTIVITY ! only someone having NO brain is objective. :-))) >Good sacks _are_ interesting, but claiming that Gambit Tiger is superior because >of a sack that may not be winning doesn't impress me. Sorry. we dont want to impress the real danish objective guys like you :-))) >No, I actually meant what I said. _All_ programs are interesting additions, not >just the speculative ones. Given your approval of lack of respect towards other >programs, I don't expect you to understand. Lack of respect, and this coming out of your mouth. Famos ! >However, I do wish you all the luck in creating an interesting program. I don't >think emulating Chris in body and mind will help that process, but what do I >know. Not much - as it looks. >Regards, >Mogens.
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.