Author: Matthew Sader
Date: 14:11:17 11/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2005 at 16:40:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On November 26, 2005 at 16:14:30, Peter Eizenhammer wrote: > >> >>Could you give a s h o r t summary >>of your short conclusion? >> >>The above one was still too long for me to understand, sorry. >> >>Peter > > >Yes, of course. :) > >People couldn't understand him. >And how people react if that >happens, that is the story. > >Short enough or enough short? I don't see what was so Profound about what he said that is too hard to understand. He made a rediculous unbelievable claim that he can beat Fruit 80% percent of the time, such a statement is childish outladish, to even insult the intelligence of the members here with such a claim in my opinion should ban him. Then when the members here put him in check for his bullshit, he reacts by playing the poor picked on victim. He made his bed with his bullshit then he should lie in it. Also the fellow used only one game as a reference point for his arguments, if he had the brains you attribute to him, he should know better. I think Graham did well by getting rid of an arrogant blowhard.
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.