Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 15:16:29 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 18:01:31, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >let me counter that question with: what did daniels answer have to do with >R(Mhz) and why didn't you give him the same question as you gave me? In case you already forgot, this is what Daniel said about the R(Mhz) formula: >>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're the one bashing the formula, so you should be the one to give some sort of solution: namely, a better formula. (Your suggestion to get rid of the formula is pointless - nobody is forcing you to pay attention to it.) Since the focus of your attention in this thread was the formula, it stands to reason that you should be talking about the formula. It doesn't matter what anyone else is talking about.
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.