Author: Mridul Muralidharan
Date: 23:42:48 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 05:48:52, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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 Seeing the long threads above - I think I am begining to appreciate your comments more , though you meant it as a joke :) The archives have brilliant discussions (some of which are "hot" , but brilliant nonetheless) on technical aspects of chess programming - nowadays I dont see much of that happening. I am partly to blame (like maybe all of us ?!) - I dont post anything much myself :( Mridul
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.