Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 18:28:40 05/29/98
Go up one level in this thread
On May 29, 1998 at 18:28:38, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On May 29, 1998 at 15:15:38, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On May 29, 1998 at 14:00:45, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >>>Both count, and they have a different purpose. >>> >>>You can always cherry pick a game where one of the players plays badly. >>>Easy, because all players play this kind of games, so you don't prove >>>much at all aside from the obvious. >> >>Enrique. What you call cherry pick is called chess. >>You play one game. And you analyse it. You play another game, and you >>analyse it. >>You marry a girl. And you love it. If you would have to marry 20 or 30 >>or 100 girls to find out about love and friendship - as in YOUR world - >>you would not be able to understand anything. And - in fact - you show >>no insights that let me see that you do understand. Not the NUMBER of >>marriages you have is important,, but the years and experience in ONE >>marriage is it. >>I can easily post as much games cstal-nimzo98 where your impressive >>fire-work ideas were refuted, since Nimzo98 uses a normal standard >>autoplayer. >>Therefore I can produce many games. But - in opposite to you - i don't >>post all my autoplayer games. In opposite to you I post the essence of >>them. >> >>What you call cherry picking. Enrique, give up chess. Give up cherry >>picking. > >I didn't think CCC had room for this kind of comments. This is no way to >argue in any civilized place I know of. Sorry. > >Enrique "CCC has no room" for me explaining you that chess works like this ? In which world do you live Enrique ? Look, you said: >>>You can always cherry pick a game where one of the players plays badly. >>>Easy, because all players play this kind of games, so you don't prove >>>much at all aside from the obvious. What does this sentence show us ? It says: Thorsten - you can show as much "examples" as you want, it is cherry picking. And it says: You cannot show any evidence that I am wrong, since any of your examples is only cherry picking. How shall i value such a statement other than you misunderstand the sense of chess. Why do you think do humans talk about lines, moves, write books with showing example games, blunder, talk about their games, analyse them, WHEN ALL THIS IS ONLY CHERRY-PICKING and makes no sense because only YOU have the one and only real and wise message, and the one and only answer? Why do you believe do we have chess-literature when all the stuff is only CHERRY PICKING !! And you wonder that I laugh about your statements ?? Aha. And you know feel that this place is not the right place to critics your kind of statements you and Moritz present in this talk ? Ok - peanuts. Cherry picking. I see. I guess I have to burn all my chess books, since any of them only talks about cherry picking. What a pity. I will burn them for you Enrique. Good that it is memorial day. I have time to burn a big fire. I will throw the books about fischers cherry's into the fire. And I will throw the magnificent books by seiravan into the fire. And the nice book I got from aegon-tournament: the sorcerers apprentice, with the games of Bronstein. All cherry picking. I now understand why you only trust in backtracking programs. Playing like god. Endgame - databases. 32-stone databases. The only accurate alternative beside cherry picking efforts. I prefer to marry ONE cherry picking time in my life. May it be wrong or not. I cannot live with the idea that 30 wifes are better than one, because they are backtracked better.
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.