Author: Duncan Stanley
Date: 03:25:32 04/22/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 22, 2001 at 05:28:18, Thorsten Czub wrote: >On April 21, 2001 at 16:25:54, Duncan Stanley wrote: > >>Sure. The could-have-been-invited list is a long one. > >>Consistency with SMP and/or strong would include Tiger, Ferret, Crafty and some >>others. > >right. > >>I suppose you have to ask what have Weiner and Friedel got that Schroeder >>hasn't. Then that Moreland and Hyatt haven't. > >right. i would say they have INTERESTS to make sure these concurrent >people are out of the contest. > >>Weiner and Friedel appararently have credibility in the computer chess >>establishment, whereas Schroeder, Hyatt and Moreland are deemed irrelevant. > >naja. i would say different. they made it look that they have credibility, >but its how the things look alike. in fact the way how things look >is not the way how things are. > I would say the opposite. The way things are is not how they look. Or do we say the same thing? Maybe we even say the same as Mr Moreland. He is concerned that things are going to be made to look very different to what they are. > >>How else can you explain the Enrique 'extended last-minute offer' to Weiner, the >>Enrique 'go away, not enough time' to Schroeder and the Enrique 'I don't even >>have time to waste on you' to Hyatt/Moreland + others. > >it seems enrique has some ORDER :-)) Yes. He is acting as front. His name in front of someone else's message. He will pay the price for doing that far in excess of any temporary benefit he might be receiving. > >>Some are more equal than others. > >:-)) > >>The business guys are well into the matters of organising these seven figure sum >>bean-fests, the other guys are just fodder. > >hm. > >>If you think about it, the business guys can't even program a PC, and they are >>allegedly extremely poor at chess as well. The programmers all allowed >>themselves to be stitched up by an organised establishment that really couldn't >>give a proverbial shit about them. The programmers are pawns. > > >i use another P-word for it :-)) > Not all are P£$%^&*$%£'s. Not everybody sells themselves. > >>They think they >>are important, they gabble around on the news groups, but, in reality, they are >>nothing but fodder who spend so much time fighting each other, that they are >>just too easy to exploit. > >right. they get exploited. by the other P-word. > > >>Oh, another thing, the programmers have 'friends', but >>these have a tendency to dump them in exchange for $5000 or the odd 15 minutes >>of fame. > >:-))) > > >>Those programmers do anything to win, but they are the big losers. Strange. > >right. they lose because they don't care about quality. They lose because their selfish desire to win at all costs precluded any form of 'solidarity'. They were too easy to divide and rule. >you can win and win and win and win, and it leads to a loss. Yes. The irony is that the win-desire turned most of them into losers. >and you don't care about winning, concentrate on quality, and it leads to a win. > >the programmers are in the trap of quality/quantity. > >they try to be materialists, when in fact only spirit is their chance out >of the dilemma. Yes. They needed spirit. Funny. They needed more than logic and rationality.
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.