Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 19:59:57 05/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 23, 2000 at 15:06:44, pete wrote:
>On May 22, 2000 at 19:25:20, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On May 22, 2000 at 19:23:25, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>On May 22, 2000 at 16:03:20, pete wrote:
>>>
>>>>On May 22, 2000 at 15:49:46, Jürgen Hartmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>After 13. f5 black is dicked, because all the eventual open lines are going to
>>>>>>>come at a time of white's choosing, and they will all favor white. After that
>>>>>>>move, black is the golf ball, it is teed up, and white is Tiger Woods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have a knack for describing and explaining things very well. I'm not the
>>>>>>only one note this. Have you considered writing a book on computer chess? I
>>>>>>would certainly buy such a book.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd also like to out myself as Bruce Moreland fan. So here is buyer No. 2 for
>>>>>the book.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jürgen.
>>>>
>>>>Let's create a Bruce Moreland fan club ; was my favourite moderator , is my
>>>>favourite poster ( probably the only one I read all messages of ) .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree. I always read Bruce's posts carefully. I wish I could explain things as
>>>clearly myself!
>>>
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>
>>
>>
>>To be honest I would like to add that I think Bob is also very good at
>>explaining technical things clearly.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>sure and completely agreed on. I learned much from Bob Hyatt's posts !
>
>but it requires _way_ more effort in filtering ;-)
>
>Who wants to read _another_ thread about a human-computer match in 1987 (!!! ) ?
>
>Also "Been there , done that !" will not _always_ be the thing you want to read
>;-)
>
>And the kind of most useless threads is two programmers fighting some useless
>fights when you always will think : " Hey , if you had put all that time in your
>program yours would have become completely unbeatable up to now ..." :-)
That's what I think sometimes. I say to myself: "why am I once again spending 10
minutes in this discussion?".
>I still wonder why in computerchess programmers keep fighting each other that
>much ; if you compair with Linux , Unix or Perl newsgroups where I am competent
>enough to follow it is a most remarkable difference
I don't understand why you wonder. It is obvious that people who are spending
most of their time working on something as futile as chess programs are
completely nuts.
So everything is possible.
I think the same happens in the world of Linux developpers, but the fights are
not so visible maybe.
>Hint : something like the "years behind" thread ...
>
>What about all the Hardware or not Hardware threats ??
>
>There was a recent post by PeterMcKenzie that was quite convincing ;-)
>
>But calling for filter functions will always sound like censorship ...
>
>Will I be moderated for this one ? If yes , it is ok by me :-) !
You should not be moderated. What you say is true. But it will not stop.
If human beings were reasonnable, they would not try to make computer play
chess, and they would not spend so much resources just to land on the moon.
I think the human race is intrinsically insane. We give ourself goals that are
not simply related to food and reproduction. Sometimes our "artificial" goals
take priority over the most basic ones, which is very dangerous.
We are insane, and we should know it. It will help to control this madness, and
turn this problem it into our ultimate strength. We should not feel guilty of
our insanity, it's just how we are. We should realize this as a fact, and things
will be easier then.
Christophe
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.