Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 12:47:26 12/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
Mr Stacey, When you you used the term "sour grapes" to describe Christophe's claim, I did indeed think you were accusing him of lying about Tiger's having been incorrectly configured. If you were NOT accusing him of lying, I apologize to you for taking it that way. What DID you mean to say about his claim when you used the term "sour grapes"? On December 03, 2001 at 15:05:31, James Stacey wrote: >On December 03, 2001 at 14:08:44, Roy Eassa 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. >>> >> >> >>A frequent reader of this message board would have seen dozens of such >>tournaments posted here. Since you accused Christophe of "sour grapes" (i.e., >>lying), > >Mr Eassa, > >I have never accused Christophe of lying and would ask you to retract your >appalling accusation. > > perhaps you should spend the hours required to dig out each tournament > >Wrong!!!! You say the evidence exists. You dig it out pal. > >>result posted and make a case that Gandalf has consistently equaled or exceeded >>the Tiger programs. >> >> >>>> >>>>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. >>> >> >> >>That is one point I agree with. However, why do you think it's improbable that >>Christope is inaccurate about Tiger's having been incorrectly configured? He >>has a clear set of criteria for what is a proper configuration, and says that >>these criteria were NOT met in this match -- i.e., Tiger was crippled. It's >>really quite simple. > >Perhaps the entire archives of SSDF should be checked for correct configurations >etc. > >> >> >>>> >>>>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? >>> >> >> >>What do Fischer's (the apostrophe goes before the s to denote singular >>possession) > >You may know your singular possessions but it is a pity that you don't know what >sour grapes means. It does not mean lying. > > current rantings have to do with whether or not he was proven >>correct in his claim from the 1960s? I never said that everything ever claimed >>by Fischer is correct; I showed that some at least one ridiculed claim of >>unfairness in chess competition turned out to have been true. >> >> >>> 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? >>> >> >> >>Once again you have changed the subject entirely. In an analogy, each party >>REPRESENTS a corresponding party in the original situation. I'm sorry if you >>did not understand that. Thus the cheating of the Soviet players is analogous >>to the improper configuration of Tiger. It does not mean that the SSDF are >>communists. > >Then are you saying that they are just cheating? Why don't you say what you >mean. > > The analogy was extended for the purpose of demonstrating that >>there is at least one historical precedent in which accusations of unfairness in >>chess were proven true. (If you are a young child who has not learned about >>analogies in school yet, I apologize. You might wish to fill in your CCC >>profile so readers know your age.) > >As far as I know the filling in of profiles is not compulsary. Are you the owner >of this site or a moderator? If not then I would ask you to mind your own >business. > >> >> >>>> >>>>Not all claims of unfairness are sour grapes. Some happen to be objectively >>>>accurate. >>> >>>There is no such thing as objectivety. >>> >> >> >>There is no objective truth?? In that case, any and all arguments are a >>complete waste of time. > >Especially yours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > But if that's not what you meant, let me explain: I >>didn't say that there are people who are always 100% objective. I said that >>there are claims that are objectively true, just as their are claims that are >>objectively false. >> >>You have accused Christophe of lying > >No I have not. Therefore you are either an idiot or a LIAR. > > when he made his simple claim that Tiger >>was configured incorrectly. The truth of his claim is quite simple to verify. >>If his claim is true, will you be proven wrong and should retract your >>accusation of lying. (Even if his claim is false, lying would be only one of >>the possible reasons.) > >Yet again you mention lying. Because of this, I consider your post to be nothing >more than a ludicrous disgusting troll. > >Best Regards > >James Stacey > >> >> >>Best regards, >> >> -Roy.
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.