Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 07:45:03 10/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2003 at 18:20:05, Robert Hyatt wrote: >Don't let this be a case of where zero knowledge [this is pointing at Vincent] trumps significant knowledge [whike that is pointing at Jeroen]. > >He has no credibility so he can't possibly do you any harm in anyone's eyes. I read that rather late but let me still ask you a question. Isn't Vincent one of very few in the scene of CC who knows a lot about chess? Doesn't he know more than Jeroen? If then on a chess level Vincent can ask a question, why don't you respond to that question? I think he developped a whole case. Why no chess related answers? Then another question. There was a tournament and a winner, good. But the only scientifically interesting question is the one Vincent brought up, I saw nothing else. Does it make sense a) from a CC view and b) from a chess view? That is an interesting question, no? Why don't you answer him? Just a little comment from my side with another question: Why don't you admit that the choice of either 1.e4 or 1.d4 for a specific engine could be crucial in terms of winning games? It is still fact that 1.e4 produces sharper positions than 1.d4. If I am wrong [as usual :)] then please explain something for the more lay readers here. BTW if you could do that then I were happy and I had done my work, which is always to support science in CC. Please do also read my other message, where I try to prove that Jeroen did NOT leave this forum because of Vincent, but because of your crystal clear position which attacks Jeroen's own position in the field of CC. Vincent just added a chess related question, but the verdict came from you. Comments? Rolf
This page took 0.01 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.