Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:19:42 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 2002 at 18:36:42, Marc van Hal wrote: >Actualy a discusion makes sence if both partys can take benifit from it. >When a discusion takes place and one side is not listening will lead to much >discomfort on both sides. >(A nice example from this discomfort was Cristopher Columbus) > >It is always helpfull first listen to the new ideas. >Then look at the facts and only then take your conclusions. >And peopel who think they know everything and are not open for new ideas are >fools. the problem is IMO that talking about a new paradigm is something, your will by definition find people involved in the discussion who fight for the old paradigm , or do not see the new ideas, because they don't want to. therefore i speak about paradigm. because i believe it is more than an idea. chris whittington worked YEARS on chess system tal before it played stable. when presenting it to the public (he sold it in his company) the reaction of the people were IMO typical for a paradigm situation. as a result chris completely lost interest in computerchess because the discussion were so disapointing (for him). instead of talking what was there (e.g. one could have talked about the games and the programmers about source code or meta-code) they discussed about their prejudices how it should have been and how it is. >Regards Marc van Hal
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.