Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Bob Durrett

Date: 13:37:33 11/19/02

Go up one level in this thread

On November 19, 2002 at 16:31:15, Russell Reagan wrote:

>On November 19, 2002 at 16:24:36, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
>>On November 19, 2002 at 16:22:14, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>You can't prove either to be clearly better than the other, but you can give >evidence that they are comparable in terms of performance.
>>You haven't done that. You've shown that they reach similar NPS.
>>NPS =/= performance
>You need to clearly define what the hell you want then. Vincent too. You two sit
>there and demand proof or evidence without providing any of your own, and then
>when someone provides what you ask for you say "That's not what I asked for." or
>"that isn't valid" or whatever the excuse of the day is. Make it clear what you
>want, or don't ask.
>Sounds an awfully lot like what goes on at r.g.c.c to me. People responding with
>stupid things like, "No..." with no "evidence" to support it.

Gosh, Russell.  Don't try to pour cold water on those guys.  There's nothing
like a Hyatt/Diep "Friendly Chat" to liven up this quiet bulletin boards.  This
is fun!  I havn't seen so many bulletins posted in such a short amount of time
for quiet awhile.  Better to pour fuel on the fire.  : )

Bob D.

This page took 0.02 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.