Author: Tina Long
Date: 19:58:27 08/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 1999 at 11:21:23, KarinsDad wrote: >On August 14, 1999 at 03:29:37, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >[snip] >> >>Howdy Dad >> >>Refering to your article that you wrote, it would be of interest to only a >>select group of people. Even if you posted it, you might get maybe up to 10 >>people who would reply. We need gerneral interest articles and reviews of >>programs and related computer chess book or services. > >I agree. But, I think we also need chess programming articles as well. If, as >you state below, 10% or less of the people here are programmers, then about 10% >or so of the articles should be on computer chess programming (and that is not >to say that non-programming readers would not find these type of articles >interesting). > >And, people write articles based on their own interest. So, in my case, if I was >successful in compressing any position into 20 bytes, then that would be what >interests me. I would post the paper and if only one person read it, that would >be enough. > >KarinsDad :) > >> >>yours would only get interest from programmers, and chess programers at that. I >>would say that maybe, I might be wrong that people who write or tinkle in chess >>program would be under 10% on here. >> >>We need articles to get interest of more than at least 60% of people on here. >>Who knows that is just my hu8mble opinion. Hi guys, Every quarter I wade through the ICCA Journal. I fully understand about 2%, I partially understand about 60%, I find interest in about 95%. (I even read all 87 pages of Bob's last paper :} ) Your short post on 20-byte positions prompted many replys. A article would probably have invoked more acedemic feedback to you. Gees, you can't wait until something's finished before you start publishing. Work in progress benefits from feedback. And if 1% of the 60% majority says "we're not interested in programming, write something the masses like" then (sentence not completed). I wouldn't like to see the articles from ICCA Journal copied to the Computer Chess reports, as it could mean the demise of ICCA Journal (I for one wouldn't need to buy it). Computer Chess Reports comes down to supply & demand. There doesn't seem to be many posts in this thread creating demand, and that is no incentive for supply. I think that some people are far too critical here, and explanitory articles often get critical replys, which is also a disincentive to post articles. My vote is to keep Computer Chess Reports alive, it can't cost too much if it is fully inactive, and if there is any activity then maybe it will justify itself. I visit there regularly, if there is anything new I decide whether or not to read it. If there is nothing new I don't say "scrap it", I just surf elsewhere that day. Hi guys, Tina Long
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.