Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:51:45 05/30/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2004 at 09:47:28, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On May 30, 2004 at 00:52:01, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On May 29, 2004 at 09:43:47, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >> >>>On May 28, 2004 at 08:28:24, Albert Silver wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>Vincent suggested matche that will never happen because he wants money for it. >>>>>>>>I responded and suggested a match that can happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is not true. If hyatt would be just 51% sure he would win, he would do such >>>>>>>a match. But he is not even 1% sure. >>>>>> >>>>>>No >>>>>> >>>>>>hyatt refuse to bet for money as a principle. >>>>>>It is clear that you throw the bet idea only to avoid the match. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>I dont see the relation of this declaration with all the topic of this thread. >>>>>Can you clarify what you are talking about? >>>> >>>>Looks pretty clear to me. >>>> >>>> Albert >>> >>> >>>What is the relevance and the relation? I dont see it. Explain it. >> >>Are you intentionally being obtuse or just stupid? >> > >The level of words that you use here will be the level of words that I will use >with you in the future. By the way, the topic is so nasty that I dont understand >why people continue citing and mentioning it. Because _you_ keep accusing Uri of posting something _unrelated_. He posted a _direct_ response to Vincent. You said you don't see how his post is related to what he followed up on. I don't see how that is possible and I _quoted_ the post by vincent, and the follow-up by Uri. His response was _directly_ related to the post by Vincent. It almost appears that you don't read the entire post. As even Albert said "it is obvious"... > >I would re-ask you or the Blass person or any similar person: To be citing the >topic or your personal battle with Vincent is also intentionally stupid. Why did _you_ jump into their discussion, and accuse Uri of posting an off-thread reply? He replied _directly_ to Vincent. Why didnt you accuse Vincent of doing that since _he_ always changes the subject. This thread had _nothing_ about that stupid bet idea of his until he introduced it. And you didn't think that was off topic... Something is badly wrong. > >>Vincent said "This is not true. If hyatt would be just 51% sure he would win, he >>would do such a match. But he is not even 1% sure." >> >>That is complete bullshit. He has previously said that I would not attend a >>wccc because I didn't think I had a chance. Now Crafty's coming. Be >>interesting to see how he retracts his statement. > >I have never said anything of this. As I told you 1 million times. All this >garbage between you and Vincent is irrelevant for me. That´s great that you join >WCC2004 because it is a shame, seeing Crafty as a mere chess program in a FTP >Folder. > > >> >>Uri pointed out "hyatt refuse to bet for money as a principle. It is clear that >>you throw the bet idea only to avoid the match." That is _exactly_ what I told >>Vincent. I'll play him any time. Any day. Any time control. But I don't bet >>on chess games, particularly with someone as dishonest as he is... If you can't >>see Uri's "relevance" to what Vincent posted, you have a _real_ problem... >> >>Vincent is the one that continually changes the topic when he loses on one angle >>of attack. Not Uri. Not me... >> > >My position as I have told him several times (but Uri only reads his messages) >that the best place to face two engines is in official Tournaments in order to >kill any polemic. > >However, neither you or Uri read that. > >>You have been hanging around Vincent too long. It appears to have had a >>negative influence on you... > >I would say that to be hanging around this Forum has a letal effect in the >people and it seems you are not safed. That is the reason why I read more the >Winboard Forum and not this one. Wherever Vincent goes, trouble will follow...
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.