Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 10:16:18 12/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 02, 2001 at 06:42:28, James Stacey wrote: >On December 02, 2001 at 00:13:46, Sally Weltrop wrote: > >>On December 01, 2001 at 18:09:25, James Stacey wrote: >> >>>On December 01, 2001 at 15:47:02, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>On December 01, 2001 at 07:47:24, James Stacey wrote: >>>> >>>>>If you don't mind me saying, your post looks a bit like sour grapes. Why can't >>>>>you just admit that Gambit Tiger is no stronger than Gandalf. Instead of trying >>>>>to find excuses, why don't you give some credit to Gandalf. I am sure that many >>>>>hours of time have gone into the programming and testing of Gandalf also. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>How do you account for the fact that Tiger has come out significantly ahead of >>>>Gandalf in about 95% of the dozens of tournaments run in the past 1/2 year? >>>>There is a lot of evidence that Tiger is stronger. >>> >>>Please post this so called evidence along with setups and the tablebases used. >>> >>>> >>>>Do you consider it IMPOSSIBLE that Christophe may be correct that Tiger was >>>>unfairly crippled in this match? >>> >>>Lots of improbable things are not impossible. >>> >>>> >>>>When Bobby Fischer complained in the '60s that Soviet grandmasters were >>>>discussing each others' ongoing games in detail (in Russian) at tournaments, he >>>>was not taken seriously. >>> >>>Do you take Fischers' current complaints about America seriously? >>> >>> During the '80s & '90s, several Soviet & former Soviet >>>>GMs, admitted that Fischer had been correct. (If I recall correctly, Bronstein >>>>and Korchnoi were among those. And wasn't Keres the first?) >>> >>>Are you saying that the SSDF are involved in some sort of absurd communist plot >>>to stop Gambit Tiger from winning? >>> >>>> >>>>Not all claims of unfairness are sour grapes. Some happen to be objectively >>>>accurate. >>> >>>There is no such thing as objectivety. >> >>In all fairness James you didn't listen to one word that Roy said to you. You >>are merging circumstances together. Basically he's saying just because someone >>laments about something and complains doesn't mean that their claims are >>invalid, sometimes they have a point which I think Chris does have here in my >>opinion. Roy was just givng you an illustration of someone crying "sour grapes" >>NOT because they were fighting an uphill battle but because they had some valid >>points and these points years later were well founded in truth. >>> >>>Best Regards >>> >>>James Stacey > >I see that arguing with Roy is like arguing with you. > >Fortunately I am unable to listen to what Roy says. I think you are getting your >circumstances mixed up here. Unfortunately, however, I was able to read his >post. I concluded that from start to finish his post was, like your post, >complete nonsense. > >It is easy to see how you and Roy get on so well together. > >Best Regards > >James Stacey Sally, some people simply do not understand analogies, and some must resort to personal insults when they do not have a logical argument. It's always been that way and, sadly, will always be so.
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.