Author: Anthony Cozzie
Date: 11:00:15 03/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
>-> the bottom line: >perhaps you are onto something great, we will see. until then, i (and i believe >many others here) prefer to think you are somewhere between slightly and stark >raving mad with your project goals. AFAIK you have absolutely nothing to show up >to now (lots of code, but i'd like to see some chess moves...). AFAIK your >engine has yet to make it's first move. it is a mystery to me how you can first >implement opening book and tablebase access before addressing the real problems >in your approach. it is also a mystery to me how you can spend lots of time >posting here about what your program will be able to do in the end, when it >can't do anything right now. > >good luck - you will need it... > martin I think Symbolic is an interesting project, simply because it is different. Whether it works or (probably) doesn't work, it provides a new datapoint, and perhaps some new perspective. However, Steven's *plans* for symbolic are not nearly as interesting as his *results*, and the former has been much more forthcoming than the latter. anthony
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.