Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 17:44:05 06/20/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 20, 2003 at 15:03:34, Reinhard Scharnagl wrote: >Such 'proposals' are only >contraproductive and do harm to the idea of Fischer Random Chess. No, such proposals are only counterproductive to your religious crusade. I think YOU do harm to the idea of Fischer Random Chess. When someone so strongly argues for such a specified thing as FRC, and then argues against something that is almost identical with equal passion, you make people wonder what your hidden agenda is. The goal of FRC, AFAIK, is to eliminate the opening "book problem" in chess. Both FRC and shuffle chess accomplish this to some degree. The fact that you do not support both chess variants makes people skeptical about what your motives are. So what are your motives? If you only said that you preferred FRC over shuffle chess, then people would take that as advice or another person's opinion and they might like FRC too, but instead you make posts that really don't make much sense and have a tone of elitism because you belong to the FRC cult and (for whatever reason) have this disdain for shuffle chess. I know you've turned me off from FRC. Just because of your personal agenda, I would think twice before implementing FRC in my program.
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.