Author: Andreas Guettinger
Date: 14:26:02 11/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On November 26, 2005 at 17:11:17, Matthew Sader wrote: >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. I wouldn't be able to express it as good as you because of my insufficient english and chary nature, but I completely agree. Very well summarized. regrads Andy
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.