Author: James T. Walker
Date: 04:59:00 08/20/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 19, 1999 at 22:34:36, Thorsten Czub wrote: >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. ***************** Do you actually believe that losing on time with a "won" position will make people love CSTal? Now I'm sure of your comprehension. No smiley face. ****************** >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 ? ***************** If this was a special mode of CSTal then it would also be acceptable. Problem is it is just sloppy programing and you're trying to excuse it as some form of "Art". **************** > >>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. > ************* Your analogy is stupid. ************* >>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 :-)) ************ Neither does being in the minority. But it could indicate you are out of touch with the norm in society. Prisons are full of these type of people. ************ > > >>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.