Author: Uri Blass
Date: 23:55:30 08/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2000 at 14:17:23, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On August 29, 2000 at 14:10:26, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: > >>Hi Diepeveen, >> >>>Especially seeing what the shortcomings were is very interesting for >>>the future. That it looks like a big excuse for what is wrong, as >>>dr. Ernst A. Heinz suggested after previous report in 1999 >>>sure isn't the truth. Without analysis you >>>can't continue. In fact how many THINGS have you read about the >>>WMCC yet? Probably nothing except the results of the games and >>>some people who still call shredder 'lucky' to win the world championship >>>tournament for the 3rd time. Without seeing things that are wrong or went >>>wrong you can't improve anyway. Note that what is in here is MY VIEWPOINT. >>>It is NOT the viewpoint of any organisation or company. If people disagree >>>and quote, please let them not quote a single line, but the whole picture; >>>the reason for that is quite obvious: i'm born in a country where we don't >>>speak much english, so misformulations of a single line should be taken >>>with a bit of salt. It's the whole picture that makes the story! >>> >>>Note that the basic difference between Heinz and me seems to be that i can play >>>some chess, about 2254 points higher rated and therefore i realize very clearly >>>what's happening in the computer chess world, where Heinz still says that it >>>is not proven that knowledge works! >> >>The difference between "Heinz" and you seems to be that "Heinz" >>does not take anything for granted unless sufficiently proven, >>whereas you, "Diepeveen", hold your personal convictions as >>divine truths which you feel enlightened to spread like a >>crusader. >> >>My reply to your garbage above is simply as follows. >> >>1. I never said that knowledge does not work. Actually, I have >> always supported a balanced "fast and smart" approach. At the >> same time, I do neither believe in knowledge as the one and >> only solution to all open challenges in computer chess. >> >>2. Although you are obviously unable to grasp and remember what >> I have already told you about my own chess playing, here we go >> again: I no longer play competitive chess becasue I deem it far >> too time consuming; yet, my last OTB rating was around 100 Ingo >> (the then German rating system) which translates to more than >> 2000 ELO if I am not mistaken. So much about your stupid claim >> of rating 2254 points higher ... >> >>Do I need to say more about your other claims? >> >>=Ernst= > > >How many world championships must a program which has superior knowledge >somewhere still win before you believe it? Ernst never said something bad about shredder. He did not call shredder lucky and did not say that knowledge does not work so I do not understand your question. > >Note that i always said thatyou need like 10-12 ply anyway. > >After that searching any deeper doesn't matter at all only knowledge >is important. Obviously when searching with the same knowledge then >searching deeper helps a lot. That's a simple form of induction. > >The whole 'crafty goes deep' clearly was real bad. Any chessplayer >can see this. Your 2000 rating i can't find on the FIDE list by the way. Ernst did not say that he has fide rating but that the translation of his rating to fide rating is more than 2000. Uri
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.