Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 12:08:51 12/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2005 at 15:00:05, Sune Larsson wrote: >On December 27, 2005 at 14:48:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On December 27, 2005 at 14:25:20, Sune Larsson wrote: >> >>>On December 27, 2005 at 14:06:37, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 27, 2005 at 12:40:16, Richard Sutherland wrote: >>>> >>>>>On December 27, 2005 at 12:19:30, Thomas Lagershausen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Let´s give some variations where Rybka play weak. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You need look no further than 11 .... g5 for an example of this. What on >>>>>earth was going through the silicon monsters head when it uncorked this beauty >>>>>(and yes, I know I'm a patzer). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I think that one of the problems that we have in this newshroup, that gives rise >>>>>to unrealistic expectations of programs abilities, is the way programs are >>>>>tested. Using one machine with two engines running on it in match after match at >>>>>short time controls, will not prove which program is better at chess. >>>> >>>> >>>>I agree 100% with you and I already had the same debate with Albert S. I doubt >>>>that it's easy to teach the average testers why it is not so informative to test >>>>like they do their testing. And what I doubt most is that Rybka's author plans >>>>to create a computer-best program. IMO he wants to present a good chess tool for >>>>the best, good and average chessplayers. And this is something totally different >>>>than producing "another" engine-engine-best entity. SInce Vas never told us >>>>different, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>my critic was practical irony with a bit of spice "dedicated" to the >>>>"followers of fashion..." [after the famous song from the KINKS, a favorite band >>>>of mine when I was young] >>> >>> >>> If you use irony on the internet - then you are almost begging about >>> becoming misunderstood...This is one of the basics when exchanging thoughts >>> on the internet. >>> >>> /S >> >>But you must admit that this way you avoid caring or cultivating for a huge >>claque. A real knowie would never miss the real meaning. Just like no real >>expert _ever_ took me wrong on my "weak" English - because he had done the >>neccessary interpretations by himself... of course others expect the >>explanations from the writer which is a common misunderstanding. >> >>No hen ever heated the water to cook her eggs for human beings. ;) > > > > No, I'm generally not a friend of irony. I think it exists much better > qualities to develop as a human being. > > /S I fear we have a misunderstanding. I do not want to propagate irony just for the effect, or to belittle someone else - but for a general ingredient of communication, as a kind of smart admitting of the relativity of everything and for all of one's own limitations... in front of the conditions of life as such. Hypocricy is clear worse. Stupidity comes in last. :) But sorry let's close this. If you are interested, then come into CTF, where the coming experts for irony are residing... :)
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.