Author: Peter Berger
Date: 17:58:50 10/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 21, 2005 at 20:47:29, Terry McCracken wrote: >Peter you're so naive. I doubt that this is the case. >If he believes he's correct than Chan is a simpleton. Another abuse ( none of *these* were moderated btw). >He has been informed by the best, and all he can do is rant and call the best >misinformed idiots. He hasn't done that in the current discussions. But yes, for some reason he doesn't believe in the arguments provided by the best, even if they know much more about computerchess than him. I didn't really understand his line of reasoning either. Even worse, he tried to argue against their arguments. Would this be a crime now ? I believe all kind of strange things too. I believe that the Shredder tournament book is worse than a good PGN book and that there is strong evidence that Zappa is the strongest chessprogram around. I also believe that a result of 6-0 in a match between two computer programs without learning is enough to conclude that the winner is better than the loser , and many more even stranger things . Will I be the next :) ? Peter
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.