Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 10:47:30 04/19/01
Go up one level in this thread
On April 19, 2001 at 13:36:27, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On April 19, 2001 at 12:22:43, Duncan Stanley wrote:
>
>>On April 19, 2001 at 11:48:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>OK, let's see if somebody can come up with a decent solution to this problem.
>>>Please, show me that you are not all deeply asleep and try to find creative
>>>solution(s). There are actually many ways to solve the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Please teecher !!! Can I answer !!!
>>
>>Modify the eval() and the search() a little by date/time to give another style.
>>
>>Can I go to the top of the class now ???
>
>This could work. But is it worth it? And doesn't it _really_ show just how
>stupid the overall match idea is? IE would I _really_ want to either (a)
>write multiple evaluations that change based on the date; (b) write a single
>eval that morphs depending on the date; or (c) any variation of the above? Is
>that time well-spent or not?
>
>Rather than trying to circumvent stupid rules, the stupid rules should be
>fixed...
I agree with you Bob.
I think it is better to let the organizers know that if the stupid rule is not
removed it will simply backfire on them.
Now they are warned, I hope.
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.