Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 09:55:08 11/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 14, 2000 at 08:13:33, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On November 14, 2000 at 07:25:08, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>I am willing to learn anything. > >Yes, but I doubt you're able. > >>YOU claim a hype. there was none. > >Well, there was. Several posters chit-chatting about the excellence of the Rebel >11 package. As long as it's not Chessbase products then it's okay, right? Something like that. See my talks with Thorsten about monopoly. This whole "new paradigm" issue as presented by Thorsten is used as a weapon against ChessBase the monopolist in his mind. In this way Thorsten puts Gambit Tiger in a light I dislike. It is like Christophe has said and also presented on my pages: "A Gambit version of Tiger which plays a whole different game of Chess using a new king safety concept. Gambit Tiger is able to play all kind of gambits much better than the Classic Tiger." Ed >Maybe >CW failed to give you enough detailed advise. > >>show evidence that GT or RT is weaker than what the beta-testers said, >>and i will except this. > >How is it that I'm supposed to produce evidence that an unsupported statement is >untrue? That's not the way it works. When you argue that it's a well known fact >without producing evidence to support it, then I'm not the one with the problem. >The author of the statement provides the proof. Rather obvious to most I >imagine. > >>your CLAIM from hear said has no weight for me , since i know that you have >>nothing else. > >I'm not referring to hearsay. I don't need to. > >>of course then it seems 80 % of the facts i know is hype for you. > >Yes, your "facts" is indeed nothing but hype. Why did you include old GT games? >Didn't the facts match your own version of reality? > >>all the archives contain is your offending posts against people >>of this group. you have no data and piss on the people. >>thats not exactly what i would call computerchess. > >And inventing your own facts as you go along is? > >>yes - the ssdf were ALWAYS trustworthy ! :-)))) > >At least they don't refer to imaginary games or mix different versions to >support their own conclusions. > >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.