Author: Graham Laight
Date: 07:31:28 08/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2004 at 10:26:17, Matthew Hull wrote: >On August 25, 2004 at 09:56:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On August 25, 2004 at 05:41:09, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>On August 25, 2004 at 05:04:00, Graham Laight wrote: >>> >>>>On August 24, 2004 at 20:54:33, Christopher Conkie wrote: >>>> >>>>>Hi Eduard, >>>>> >>>>>It's all very interesting these differing opinions. I'm just wondering whether >>>>>all the users who want to discuss about computer chess would like to go to >>>>>USENET. I'm not sure that Steve thought it was a good idea either. >>>>> >>>>>You have got me facinated however. Where is this moderate, frugal, limited, >>>>>ordinary place we should all go to talk about computer chess? >>>> >>>>http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&group=rec.games.chess.computer >>> >>>I'm neither pro or contra USENET here, but keep in mind, that the discussion >>>style would change slightly. In USENET it can take up to a day until everyone >>>can see the post. It's also possible that you see the answer to something w/o >>>seeing the original question yet. Nothing wrong with that, but it's something >>>different to how CCC works at the moment. >> >>A big problem of CCC is that it moves too fast and that searching in archives >>never works and after a day or 2 all postings you did you can't read any reply >>from anymore as they are gone. Usenet gets saved everywhere. >> >>A good example is that a few years ago here at CCC hyatt posted that he had >>tested quad xeons with 1MB L2 cache versus Xeons with several MB's L2 cache and >>saw zero difference in speed. >> >>Now we have a big thread here where he denies it. > > >If that were true, you would have posted the RGCC text to prove your point. He said that the text was posted in CCC - not RGCC. I am not saying that Vincent is correct - he may be wrong - I'm merely saying that it cannot be proven by posting any text from RGCC. Take care, -g >>At RGCC such an idiocy would not happen. You search his old posting and dang, he >>has to shut up. > > >You didn't search it. You didn't prove the contradiction. So it looks like YOU >are the one who should shut up. > > > >> >>Now there have been tens of postings with Kerrigan in all his rights exploding >>and Hyatt keeping posting nonsense. > > >The only nonsense being posted here is from YOU.
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.