Author: Don Dailey
Date: 07:37:06 06/15/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1998 at 08:24:44, Thorsten Czub wrote: >>I think horse hockey is just about the right word for this >>"mass-energy" nonsense. It sounds really cool but has no >>substance. >> >>- Don > >If you have energy , or an idea, you can make mass out of it. >If you have energy, or an idea, but you are a bean counter, you will >fail. > >Materialist rely on mass because they can measure it. And they can catch >it. >They need to see it. Because they don't believe. >They put the mass into a safe. To make it saver. To prove it better. >Because they have no freedom. And no creativity. > >In the end they measure, prove, and feel good with making statistics >about the weight. > >If you call energy or an idea >"no substance" you make a big mistake. >Nothing is more dangerous than an idea or energy. >Therefore the materialists always try to: don't change. Let us do it >like we have always done it. It's saver ! >Never change ! > >Any society will learn that conservatism is no value at all. Thorsten, You are always implying that you have some special insights and that others are in some kind of conservative rut. But all your ideas have been on an extremely high level of abstraction. Saying "use more knowledge" or "make your program search fewer nodes" is not a very coherent plan, and reveals no insight whatsover. You often use the time honored technique of being critical and pointing to the problems and saying it loud enough that no one notices you are not presenting any solutions. This makes it appear that you are privy to a better way when in fact you are not. But you have said nothing we do not already know. Every programmer on this group knows what the most serious problems of computer chess are. And each one of us is keenly interested in solving them. Stop attacking us as "materialists" which is a gross overstatement of what we actually do. We are simply engineers and will always be writing the strongest programs because we will always use the techniques that work best. The truth of the matter is that if you want to have a TOP program RIGHT NOW, you MUST have a very fast program with significant knowledge engineering. If you want to innovate, experiment and be able to claim special insights that other do not have, then you must be content with a program that SUCKS. If this changes then the engineers will be right on top of this change and will conform, because they will always write the best and strongest programs. In my opinion you have no special insights whatsoever on what to do about the problems of computer chess. But if you want to prove me wrong, then I am willing to listen to any concrete solutions you can present to us. - Don
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.