Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:44:56 10/28/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2003 at 04:39:01, Johan de Koning wrote: >On October 27, 2003 at 14:24:06, Jeroen Noomen wrote: > >>Hi all, >> >>After another stupid attack by some person (I think you know who I mean) I have >>decided to quit posting in this forum. Whatever you write, there are always >>fools around that attack you, blame you, throw with mud to you and accuse you of >>a lot of rubbish. >> >>I can spend my time much better than reading all this stuff. Two weeks of Leiden >>have convinced me that whatever you post, how serious it is, how much you want >>to share some opening ideas or analysis: there are always lunatics who are going >>to attack you or shit on you. >> >>Enough is enough! Thanks a lot to the people who were serious and gave credit to >>my work. Also thanks to the people that argued with me in a humorous and >>constructive way. At least I enjoyed that. > >You're probably not going appreciate my comment right now, >but IMHO suicide notes are boring and annoying. > >You've collected a lot of praise and encouragement in this thread, none of >which I'd like to question. But the tone of the messages is getting more subtle >by the hour. Because suicide notes are boring and annoying. > >Since I'm sure you're going to post here again, I'd advice to retract your >message as soon as you've cooled down. And I hope that will be soon. >Because suicide notes are the number 1 way to lose credibility. > >... Johan Well as long as it isn't a single ticket Golden Gate bridge not much wrong here, but after being a few years at CCC here i realize very well that for opening book creators the average discussion about opening books is not very friendly. I'm no exception to that. Also when Jeroen would start a post with subject only: "1.h3? i consider not as a serious opening in computerchess" He will get around 10 replies to that, that it still must get proven whether it is a serious or not a serious openings position; which shows the average level most postings have with regards to openingsbooks very well here. Below is a discussion of Dan Corbit about random books and random chosing alternatives from a random generated PGN book, something which was as far as i know, already refuted back in 1997 by Alexander Kure very clearly after which within a few years the rest followed in his footsteps (if they didn't already). If in 2003 such things still get questionned in groups like these, that says more about the group and the usefulness of such groups here with regards to opening books. But still i wouldn't jump from that bridge :)
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.