Author: James Stacey
Date: 12:12:30 12/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2001 at 13:16:18, Roy Eassa wrote: >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. I am glad you admit that you do this. Regards James Stacey 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.