Author: Omid David
Date: 09:25:12 10/04/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 04, 2002 at 12:13:32, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 04, 2002 at 11:38:18, Omid David wrote: > >>At the current stage, my engine has a +2500 performance, so I know what I'm >>talking about. > >I'll make my point now before it gets lost in the other thread. > >Advancing your engine will mean that from a certain point on you >will realize that some things you did before are no good. You can >take this in a very broad sense. It doesn't only refer to algorithms. > >This means that your engine and your view on programming it are >not perfect. What you know and think now may be things you completely >disagree with one year from now. > >With this background, saying that your engine is x strength and that >hence we should trust you, is not a solid argument in my view. > Of course, I perfectly agree. But calling me an idiot, also wouldn't be very accurate (I hope!). >No matter how strong your engine is, you may just be wrong. For >one, you don't think everything Vincent writes is right and that >he knows everything about everything he talks about, do you? > >If Vincent says that your method sucks and your engine must suck >if it works for you, he may be right. You aren't going to prove >him wrong by arguing that you have a strong engine. I don't think >you're going to be able to prove him wrong, period. But that >doesn't mean he is right, either. > >At best you can demonstrate that, right now, the method improves >the strength of your engine. Maybe one year from now you've thrown >it out for god-knows what reasons. Maybe one year from now we'll >all have stolen it because it turns out to be a brilliant idea. >Who knows? > >-- >GCP I completely agree with everything you mentioned. Omid.
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.