Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 20:43:58 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 17:47:48, chandler yergin wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 13:57:14, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>What I am trying to say is I don't care what the number is. I picked 100 >>because it was nice, round, and big. The *POINT* is that I think the 6-man >>tables will be a much bigger strength gain then the 5-man tables. I think it >>will be quite considerable; time will tell what the actual number is. >> >>I can't stand people who can't see the big picture and get caught up on every >>stupid detail. >> >>anthony > >I can't stand people that thknk 6 man EGTB's are the "ultimate" >Material WILL change; then, you are BACK to the 5 Piece EGTB's! >What is sooo hard to understand? >Tooo complicated for ya? I dont think you seem to understand the programmatic value of EGTB - so it would be quiet pointless for you to argue in this case ! Am I right ? :) I can underttand a discussion w.r.t the latency from IO to computatinal efficiency of "evaluating" perfecting , etc - but your arguments are quiet "different" and hilarious ;) Mridul
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.