Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 19:34:36 08/19/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 1999 at 21:35:30, James T. Walker wrote: >Hello again, >I'm sure you understood that it is beyond my comprehension that someone would >write a chess program that ignores the time control and thereby loses on time. I am sure this is beyond, yes. :-) >It's obviously very easy to make a program make one move in 4:33 since they can >play entire games in less time than that. It is an advantage that computers >have over humans so to equate the two is wrong. Humans have certain limitations >with hand eye coordination. If losing is considered human like then you have >reached your goal. That is not the goal of most humans however. Although this is not the goal, i am sure programs doing this will be more loved than programs that do not lose. programs that do always win are uninteresting for most humans. they need an opponent they cannot be sure that the sac works when the opponent sacs. if they play against a program that always wins and the sac is no sac it is calculated tactics, humans will IMO lose interest. because they have no chances at all and they fight a calculator. even fritz has special modes where it makes mistakes. why ? >I appreciate your confession here. I was not aware of the Oxford philosiphy of >losing is good when I purchased the program. By the way Hiarcs 7.32 has played >over 1500 auto232 games on my computer and has not lost one game on time yet. if somebody comes to me and says he has kissed 1500 girls, i would call him an idiot. it is not important that you kiss 1500, it is important to kiss the right girls. this seems to be a "philosophy" that is beyond your comprehension. hm. strange. i was never interested in kissing 1500 girls. or even on time. with a clock running in the background, giving me 2 hours to do the job. when i kiss my beloved girl i need as much time as it could be. >A >quality which I appreciate since it's so easy to avoid. I feel losing on time >is acceptable when you are losing anyway and spend your last few seconds looking >for a way to save the game. Question. Why are you interested in making the >program stronger if you are willing to lose on time? Strength is measured in >win/loss records. not for me. beaty of a girl is measured in what ? results ? for me chess and love and girls - all is the same. quality is quality. whereever you recognize it. you cannot substitute quality by quantity. > There is no other way I know of. :-)) > Simple statistics. :-)) thought so. what a pity for you. > If you >beat me more than I beat you then you are stronger than me. If I beat you more >than you beat me but you claim it's only because I expected you to play >according to the time controls then your claim is dubious at best. Maybe the >clocks should be removed from the GUI to remove all pretense of trying to play >within time limits. You could advertise this fact so that customers who wanted >this feature would be pleased and rush to buy the program. >Maybe I should explain that I spent the last 15 years of my career in Quality >Assurance. I've developed a bad habbit of nit picking. It comes from too many >of the Deming seminars I think. :-) guess so :-)) >Well we simply have a different philosophy on the area of computer chess. >Perhaps I'm in the minority, it wouldn't be the first time. i am sure you are in the majority. but beeing in the majority does not say us anything to the quality of the point of view :-)) >Regards, >>>Jim Walker
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.