Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Fruit 2 and endgame play

Author: Anthony Cozzie

Date: 11:12:45 01/14/05

Go up one level in this thread


On January 14, 2005 at 06:37:42, Vasik Rajlich wrote:

>On January 14, 2005 at 02:42:48, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>
>>On January 13, 2005 at 05:48:52, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>>
>>>On January 12, 2005 at 23:43:58, Mridul Muralidharan wrote:
>>>
>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 17:47:48, chandler yergin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 13:57:14, Anthony Cozzie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>What I am trying to say is I don't care what the number is.  I picked 100
>>>>>>because it was nice, round, and big.  The *POINT* is that I think the 6-man
>>>>>>tables will be a much bigger strength gain then the 5-man tables.  I think it
>>>>>>will be quite considerable; time will tell what the actual number is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can't stand people who can't see the big picture and get caught up on every
>>>>>>stupid detail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>anthony
>>>>>
>>>>>I can't stand people that thknk 6 man EGTB's are the "ultimate"
>>>>>Material WILL change; then, you are BACK to the 5 Piece EGTB's!
>>>>>What is sooo hard to understand?
>>>>>Tooo complicated for ya?
>>>>
>>>>I dont think you seem to understand the programmatic value of EGTB - so it would
>>>>be quiet pointless for you to argue in this case !
>>>>Am I right ? :)
>>>>
>>>>I can underttand a discussion w.r.t the latency from IO to computatinal
>>>>efficiency of "evaluating" perfecting , etc - but your arguments are quiet
>>>>"different" and hilarious ;)
>>>>
>>>>Mridul
>>>
>>>Mridul -
>>>
>>>you seem to have mistaken this place for a computer chess club. It is the
>>>technical discussion which would be "different" here - maybe even hilarious ...
>>>
>>>:)
>>>
>>>Vas
>>
>>
>>Seeing the long threads above - I think I am begining to appreciate your
>>comments more , though you meant it as a joke :)
>>The archives have brilliant discussions (some of which are "hot" , but brilliant
>>nonetheless) on technical aspects of chess programming - nowadays I dont see
>>much of that happening.
>>I am partly to blame (like maybe all of us ?!) - I dont post anything much
>>myself :(
>>
>>Mridul
>
>I know what you mean - the CCC archives are really great. What happened to this
>place?
>
>One problem is - once you understand something, it's not that interesting to
>post about it. I usually only post about things I haven't understood yet :)
>
>Vas

At some point this place changed from "cutting edge chess programming
discussions" to a mix of about 75% testers/settings experimenters and 25%
newbies, with a few of the old guard like Bob around to keep it interesting.
Now, I have no problems with either of those two groups of people, but I haven't
actually learned anything here in the past year or so.  If you want to write an
engine rated 2400 SSDF, this place is great, but if you want to write a 2800
rated engine it is practically worthless.

I understand everyone's perspective: if I am a commercial author I'm not going
to talk about what I do so a bunch of new engine authors can play better and put
me out of business; I'm only going to talk about those things to other authors
who can offer me ideas in return.  Even as the author of a (moderately) strong
amateur engine I feel the same way, although to a lesser extent I suppose.

I don't really see a solution to the problem, but I do know my desire to read
CCC is dropping by the day.

anthony



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.