Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 02:48:52 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 23:43:58, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >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 Mridul - you seem to have mistaken this place for a computer chess club. It is the technical discussion which would be "different" here - maybe even hilarious ... :) Vas
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.