Author: Albert Silver
Date: 20:34:20 07/07/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 07, 2004 at 21:20:55, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>On July 07, 2004 at 19:33:52, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On July 07, 2004 at 14:24:14, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>>
>>>On July 07, 2004 at 12:09:14, Albert Silver wrote:
>>>
>>>>On July 07, 2004 at 11:30:24, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It has been a surprise to analyze Junior-Diep game, specially when you have read
>>>>>here so many posts by Diepeveen talking of the huge knowledge capabilities of
>>>>>his program. Looking at the position before white rook taking "a" pawn it is not
>>>>>neccesary to be more than 2000 elo player to see the threats lurking in the
>>>>>position, the great activity, open or scarcely hidden, of black pieces, all of
>>>>>them aiming at the white king or near it.
>>>>>Oh well, said Diep, but a pawn is a pawn....
>>>>>If there is a program that can talk of knowledge is or has been Junior. At least
>>>>>he really knows to attack.
>>>>>Anyway, I got fun. As a lover of dedicated units, I chose to take Diep endeavour
>>>>>in this game as a kind of homage to those old machines.
>>>>>Very poignant indeed.
>>>>>fernando
>>>>
>>>>You've heard of those nonsense posts on "what if a program like Junior were to
>>>>run on the Deep Blue hardware?". Well, this is a similar experiment with the
>>>>Chess Challenger software running on hardware that is thousands if not millions
>>>>of times faster.
>>>>
>>>>A lot of people don't realize the meaning of the DIEP acronym, mistakenly
>>>>thinking it has something to do with the author's name: Diminished Intellect
>>>>Experimental Program.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That is pretty harsh criticism from someone who's engine competes in Class D at
>>>WBEC ;)
>>>
>>>anthony
>>
>>You guys really need to learn to lighten up. It's not such harsh criticism as I
>>have yet to understand how anyone could possibly take any of it seriously. I'd
>>suggest some of the more vociferous posters take a couple of steps back to
>>regain some perspective.
>>
>> Albert
>
>This is not criticism, it is simply an insult. To be fair, Vincent does a great
>deal of this himself (especially about Crafty, which seems to be trashing his
>predictions so far) but two wrongs don't make a right.
>
>anthony
Actually, it is neither criticism, nor an insult. The comparison to Chess
Challenger, which in its early incarnations could not even play the full legal
game, is a joke. I merely took Fernando's comparison with machines of the 80s
and took it a step further. I'd have thought the comparison was so amazingly
exaggerated, not to mention the idea of speeding it up by a million-fold, that
it would have been clear it wasn't a serious comment. I'm not sorry for the
comment, it was and is a silly joke. You don't need to find it cute, but to
presume it was a serious attempt to insult him is really the epitome of
ridicule. If some people want to try to make this into some form of holy war, be
my guest, but they will be yelling alone. To see so many go up in flames doesn't
make me wish to revise my comment, it does make me wonder about the posters
though. I'd suggest lots of rest to them, and above all, no computers.
As to Arturo, his comments were so absurd I didn't even know what to do except
conclude the poor fellow is mad. There is a line after all, when passion crosses
the boundary to fanatacism. There are a few people whose posts I never bother
reading, even if they respond to me, usually in CTF though, and now he's on the
list. I learned long ago, especially in CTF, that arguing with madmen is an
exercise in madness itself, so....
Albert
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.