Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 17:00:38 06/16/98
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1998 at 10:37:06, Don Dailey wrote: >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. Not having solutions doesn't mean one has to be acritical. I don't know how to make a violin, but I am entitled to say that a given violin sounds horribly, even if I can't offer better solutions than telling the maker to improve the instrument. Same with chess programs. Not being able to program and therefore to present solutions doesn't mean Thorsten must shut up about programs that play chess. > 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. Don, the vast majority of us are not programmers. Maybe we find interesting some issues that don't interest you, and viceversa. CCC stands for chess computer club, not for chess programmers club. > 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. And here you are using the time honored technique of shutting up someone's mouth for not being a professional in the field. It is as if I would tell you that you can't analyze Thorsten's words because you are not a linguist. It wouldn't make much sense either. Thorsten knows about games played by programs as much as the best of us. We may like or dislike his style, agree or disagree with his points, even get mad as I do at his occasional aggressivity, but disqualifying what he has to say for not offering solutions is in my opinion irrational. Enrique >- Don
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.