Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:21:18 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 15:26:18, robert michelena wrote: >As for this legal terminology argument, let me see if I can help. > >I do not believe it is possible for any human player who is not a Grandmaster or >International master to be capable of defeating a top commercial program at >their strongest setting. > >I do not believe I can make it any clearer then this. > >As for the sudden emergence of "legal" experts, taking me to task for alleged >misapplication of the rules of evidence, please direct your attention to the >Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 801 (c): Hearsay. "Hearsay" is a statement, >other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, >offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. You have no prayer on your bar exam. _I_ told you _directly_ that I had beaten several commercial programs over the years, at 40/2 hours. Albert Silver told you the same thing. I didn't say "Someone told me they beat a commercial program". I said "I beat a commercial program." Get the difference? I also reported that I had _watched_ many other non-IM/non-GM players beat chess programs. OTB and on ICC/FICS. What _I_ see is _not_ hearsay. It is a direct statement. So I am not "one other than the declarant". I am _the_ declarant. Albert Silver is the same. Bruce Moreland is the same. As are all the others that have stated that they have won an occasional game. > >For that "alleged" practicing attorney (ha ha ha ha- you people are really >creative! ) I suggest you go over my statement, and go over your hornbook on >evidence and try not to let your partners know you made such a statement. I >won't tell on you. :) He is practicing. If you don't learn to read/write/comprehend a tad better, you won't ever reach that stage. IMHO.
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.