Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: significant math

Author: Alessandro Damiani

Date: 13:55:55 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.

It is easier to say "no, this doesn't work." than trying to do the work oneself.
Some politicians behave the same way. It is cheap.


This page took 0.01 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.