Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 08:51:32 03/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 06, 2001 at 11:21:07, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On March 06, 2001 at 08:14:33, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>What does it means? Well, seems that you like complex, scientifically worded >>sentences that are more obscure than clarifying. Of course I never said that >>programs must be equally strong, no matter the hardware: what I said was that: > >I think you missed the word "relative". I did not miss it. But there is a great gap between relative and absolute. You are right to use the word if the distance is somewhat proportionate, but not if it is not. Any program plays better with more time or better hardware, but any top program does not show such a big difference between short and long time. Nevertheles, all this is obsolete as much it refers to G and F versions. I do not sustain the same for H version,. It would not be objetive... > >>a) the difference between my purchased version of gandalf and the one running in >>Paderborn was too big. > >How did you know? You didn't have the Paderborn version in question; thereby no >foundation for comparison. Instead I had to endure ramblings about the problems >of neglected hardware and lack of consumer service. There's no obvious >relationship to the original question. Especially without any substance. The base for comparison was the sheer good perfomance of Gandalf in Paderborn comnpared with what I was testing myself with my games. > >>b) AND THAT I did not like what I had. Yes, that kind of judgments you look with >>a disdainful mood. "Very subjetive". I forgot you are the brother of Mr Spock, >>sorry. > >And now everything is honky dorey. I'm looking forward to seeing examples where >the two versions differ significantly in style. > You can compare yourself H version and the others. It is very clear. And I am thankful it is so. >>Who are you to judge what is or is not fruitful? Any topic is fruitful if it >>produces debate. The play of minds, etc. > >That is a good point, but as soon as it gets down to "How?" and "Why?" the >fruitfulness vanishes into halfbaked theories and opinions. How and whys are the main questions in anything. Are the core of discussion. Even if they that not give har facts, let the mind to go to the facts with a sense of orientation and pirpose. > >>Your scientifical posture based in a >>narrow minded obsesion with data, numbers and anything you believe "objetive" is >>so extreme in everything that approach dangerously to parody. Yo see, this s >>general forum about chess computer, not a simposium concurred by robots. > >Noone suggests that that everything should be driven by conclusive facts. But it >shouldn't be based on tealeaves or advice from the spirits of ancestors either. >A modest blend would suffice IMO. "Tealeaves" and "ancestor SPIRITS" are funny ways of putting yopur point, but very subjetive qualifications of my way of thinking and so a very objetive qualification of your own subjetivism. You should follow your own advices. > >>Ohh, Thanks God you did not.... My full career and ego was in jeopardize. I >>appreciate that. I promise you I will do the same, no matter how many times I >>fell I could do otherwise. Quid pro Quo > >No matter how many times man falls, he picks himself up and continues. > >Mogens. Yeah. So I have some hope for you. And for me. No problem with a fall from time to time. regards Fernando
This page took 0.01 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.