Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 02:49:11 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 05:42:16, John Warfield wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 05:16:45, Andrew Williams wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 04:57:14, John Warfield wrote: >> >>>On January 18, 2000 at 04:45:33, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >>> >>>>On January 18, 2000 at 04:30:51, John Warfield wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 18, 2000 at 02:54:50, Bruce Moreland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 18, 2000 at 01:25:23, John Warfield wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 17, 2000 at 16:46:52, Rajen Gupta wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I remember when i 1st started reading the web comp chess reports-rebel8 was the >>>>>>>>new champ-by a huge margin.since then there is no convincing evidence that later >>>>>>>>versions of rebel are stronger than rebel8. perhaps someone who does extensive >>>>>>>>testing like Mark Young or enrique can tell us (on the basis of actual tests and >>>>>>>>comp vs comp games please, not merely on subjective impressions)the following: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>which is the strongest version of rebel >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>is rebel getting progressively weaker with each version or is this merely >>>>>>>>because other programmes are getting disproportionately stronger? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>if rebel is actually getting weaker then what is the purpose of releasing new >>>>>>>>versions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>rajen >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your obviously on Crack Cocaine! >>>>>> >>>>>>your - your barn is on fire >>>>>>you're - you're out of your league >>>>>>they're - they're going to get whacked if they keep that up >>>>>>their - their barn is on fire >>>>>>there - there it is >>>>>>loose - his belt was loose, and that led to disaster >>>>>>lose - we're going to lose this one >>>>>>it's - it's the end of a very long day >>>>>>its - its engine konked out, and I had to walk home >>>>>> >>>>>>Have fun. >>>>>> >>>>>>bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry Bruce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I missed the meaning of your post? Just a little bit over my ahead can you >>>>>clarify the purpose of the above in plain language? >>>> >>>>I think he was being facetious. (Uh, oh! Looks like _I_ need a spelling lesson >>>>now...Or is that spelled correctly? :)) >>>> >>>>You wrote "Your obviously...", where it should've been "You're obviously...". >>>>Well, at least you spelled cocaine right. >>> >>> >>> >>> Is that all?? I am disappointed I didn't know bruce could be so petty? >> >>I think you should consider what your original post contributed to the group. >> >>Andrew > > > Well you can probally ask that questions about 90% of the post here. Not every >post has to be a constribution does it? Where in the CCC charter does it say a >post must contribute? My contribution was to point out that the poster was nuts >says that rebel has declined. Surely you have a reason for thinking this? Why not tell us your reason for thinking that Rebel hasn't declined, rather than just making a meaningless assertion? Andrew
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.