Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 13:58:39 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On January 18, 2000 at 16:32:13, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 12:30:38, Tom Kerrigan wrote: > >>On January 18, 2000 at 12:24:00, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>Remove the silly R(Mhz) formula Will. >> >>This is a stupid suggestion. It's obviously there because somebody thinks it has >>some significance. If you don't think it's accurate, then maybe a disclaimer >>should be added to the list. But ordering Will to remove it is arrogant, plain >>and simple. >> >>-Tom > >He's a scientist. Big masses belief in what they produce. He produces crap. Welp that's a bit harsh, don't you think? He doesn't produce crap at all. He clearly states the formula in every GreenList he (automatically) produces. If the "big masses" take just the number and interpret it the way they want, it's their fault, not Wills. (same goes for statistics btw) His formula is also not wrong, because he *defines* the formula this way. And definitions are neither right nor wrong. They may be useful or not in a certain context, but they're not "crap" as you put it. Will also didn't claim it's the best formula there is, he even invited you to come up with a better definition of R. (which you failed to do so far btw) You (Vincent) have good points to make, but I wish you'd learn how to say your point a bit less harsh. Subjects like "<whatever> sucks" is not a nice/ scientific way to do this. Kinds regards, -sargon
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.