Author: KarinsDad
Date: 15:16:18 07/12/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 12, 1999 at 16:05:03, Andrew Williams wrote: [snip] > >Of course GM games are extremely important for improving our engines. I spend >a lot of time going through GM games and comparing what my program wants to >do with what the GMs did. I also find it very useful when posters here say >"GM X played this move against GM Y - this is the sort of thing computers just >can't do." etc etc. But this thread was not about GM games, rather about what >one GM was or wasn't doing in Las Vegas. ZERO relevance to computer chess. > Relevance is based on the individual, not the entire audience. If there is a person who is attempting to make his program play like Karpov, it is important for him to know which tournaments Karpov is playing in so that he can attempt to get the games for comparison. Although the original thread would have ZERO computer chess relevance to you, it could have a lot of computer chess relevance to another person. I find ZERO relevance to myself currently when people post computer / computer tournament results. However, to a lot of people here, that has computer chess relevance. For me, discussions on programming techniques has relevance. Discussions on how to configure your system for a given chess program do not. Many people find ZERO relevance when someone posts a new maximum number of legal chess positions. But for someone like myself who is attempting to compress the maximum number of legal moves into 20 bytes so that it will store better in a computer program, it has computer chess relevance. There are areas which are shades of grey and as long as the "low relevance" areas do not get greatly out of hand, I feel that contributions are being made to the overall set of knowledge. KarinsDad :)
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.