Author: Chessfun
Date: 06:20:44 06/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 26, 2001 at 09:11:58, Chris Carson wrote: >1. I will not list people, however, if you read the attacks on my posts you >will see who they are. > >2. I did not say "GM" anywhere in my post. "2100" is what critics have >claimed, so "2100" is what I said. I have stated that I believe (and results >show this) that "2400" in closed positions is what the results show. 2600+ for >all results, 2900 for open positions. I seen nothing that points to "2100" for >program performance in closed position. I see a single game losses, but not >"2100" performance. How about 2150? ;-) >3. You can view my opinion as nonsense. I can live with that, but you will >note that I do not follow your postings with follow-ups that say "nonsense". I >do state my reasons with data if I have it, or I qualify as just my opinion. Chris it isn't about viewing your opinion as nonsense. You make a post which it itself may be insulting to others then trivialize it. The same especially item 3) Ego could be said about those with opinions that computers are of GM strength, either way IMO it's flammable. 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.