Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:51:26 10/14/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 2003 at 22:47:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 13, 2003 at 14:59:43, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >[snip] >Scroll one more posting back instead of defending yourself so poorly. >Crafty code already proofs how poor your defense is here. I gave you the _exact_ quote. Yet you refuse to acknowledge that you simply made a stupid comment that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Which was about checks in the q-search. _not_ about checks in the normal search. Just look at the title of the thread: -------------------------------------------------------------- Re: To check or not to check, this is the quiescence question -------------------------------------------------------------- I know you can't participate in a tightly-focused discussion, you have to give what I like to call "the classic uninformed shotgun answer". IE you have nothing to contribute that is technically addressed to the subject, so you just shoot a shotgun blast and hope to hit with one of the many pellets you fire. Try using a rifle, carefully aimed at the target. It burns less powder, throws less lead, and does less collateral damage. And you stop looking like an idiot all the time, which would be a huge advantage. This _is_ about the q-search. It is _not_ about the normal search. Your comments are simply out of place, not to mention wrong.
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.