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.