Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 12:51:35 12/03/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 03, 2001 at 15:12:30, James Stacey wrote:
>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
I thought you could have found something even more childish to say.
Bad shape today? ;)
Christophe
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.