Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:16:41 11/04/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2003 at 23:40:53, margolies,marc wrote: >My status is that I am your respondent. Which apparently puts me at your level, >alas. But I was discussing YOUR 'claim'(not 'our claim') with regards to its >mischievious ends, not my opinion of its truth value. >I suspect you are too mischievous to stay on topic. I don't want to disscuss >your intelligence either, unless you are a chess engine. > What claim? It's a scientific fact that humans are intelligent animals. Some more than others but that was not the issue. I made no claim except that the people here claim to be intelligent. Am I wrong? Do you claim to be not intelligent? If you took ofense to the subject, then that's your problem. The point of the post was about the bickering over the way TheKing engine was being tested by SSDF. I was trying to point out that the SSDF can do whatever they want and it's fine as long as they inform everyone exactly how they are testing the engine. It would give a reference point for the engine under those exact conditions. It would not be ChessMaster 9000 though. Jim >On November 03, 2003 at 19:59:04, James T. Walker wrote: > >>On November 03, 2003 at 15:14:02, margolies,marc wrote: >> >>>I am so sorry. >>>Did we claim we are intelligent? >>>Or rather, did you claim we were intelligent so that you could ridicule us >>>because you believe you are even more intelligent than others? >> >>If you are not intelligent, then what is your status?
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.