Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 03:02:29 02/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 31, 2002 at 14:36:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >I suggest that you lookup with the CCC search engine the dozens of posts that >shot *ME* down when I tried to insist that a ply is a ply is a ply. > >The thorough and convincing arguements against it showed that I was clearly >wrong. > >As you are clearly, unmistakeably, and totally wrong right now. Those are harsh words for such an unemotional subject, Dann :) Anyway, I don't see why I am wrong, I haven't heard any arguments to show me that I am wrong, and I can't imagine any argument that will make me go: "Well, ok, that's true". It is a matter of definitions for me. A ply is well defined. If someone wants to define some other notion (vaguely?) related to "a ply", then fine by me, but I am sure that I will then note the distinction. A ply is a ply. Give me an example of something that I would call a ply that is not a ply. /David, who is wondering how many angels can stand on the head of a needle.
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.