Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 22:57:53 12/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 28, 1999 at 21:32:40, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>On December 28, 1999 at 12:14:14, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On December 27, 1999 at 20:08:54, Fernando Villegas wrote:
>>
>>>Christophe:
>>>It was not necesary to become sarcastic. As a purchaser that is all the time
>>>buying new stuff -and surely yours when it is available- I am the last guy here
>>>trying to say to you or to any other programmer that you should go. And you know
>>>it, but it seems that sometimes you cannot hold your tongue for saying something
>>>"smart". Or you believe that speaking well of Sargon is some kind of
>>>profilactic attack on Tiger? You can consider that a complete mistake, but even
>>>a worst mstake is to believe that I am trying to erase the meaning of your work
>>>and the works of yours colleagues. That was your impression?
>>
>>
>>Not exactly.
>>
>>But given the months of hard work we spend on chess programming, I'm a little
>>bit sorry that you only test them by playing yourself a few games against them.
>>
>>This is simply not serious.
>
>
>That's depends of what dou you do with them. I only play them, so for me the
>only serious measure of strenght -right or wrong- is my playing. Nevertheless, I
>recognize, as I said in a post above, that I was taking my weakness for strenght
>of the program. So my measure is serious but unuseful... seriously idiot.
Something useful you can do with your methodology would be to point out
weaknesses in some programs (mine included, why not).
For example on FICS there was a guy named Shutka that has a low rating, but he
was able to defeat Tiger repeatedly.
He has pointed out a couple of interesting problem: how to prevent a human
player to close the position and make the program lose on time?
Now this problem is -I think- solved in Tiger, but without Shutka I would not
have known.
I think that if you allow yourself to take back moves you can certainly avoid
the tactical traps and drive the programs into positions they don't understand.
If, for a given program, you are able to repeat the experiment and hurt the
program each time with the same concept (knowledge), then it's interesting.
>>> Christophe, it is
>>>not the case and that is the reason why not always sarcasm is coincident with
>>>smartness; easily you go wrong. Sharp words get the edge over sound reasonning.
>>>And it is too easy. You can do better. I can do it in a second. Anybody can. We
>>>see that here all days. But, for what?
>>
>>
>>Come on, if I had myself written a post like yours, explaining how good a
>>program is by just playing myself against it, I would have been lynched
>>immediately.
>>
>
>Hahahaha, well, maybe some people here would do that.
>
>>Sorry for the sarcasms. I apologize, but ask yourself if you don't deserve them
>>a little bit.
>>
>>Just a little bit.
>
>You are right. I deserve a little bit of it. One of these days I will lose
>against Chess challenger 7 and I will say that it is a top program....:-) I
>suppose it is an unconconiuos way to soften somewhat the sad meaning of
>defeats...
Back in 1979, I was so disgusted by my repeated defeats against Sargon II that I
decided to write a program myself.
Everybody has his own way to soften the pain... :)
Christophe
>>
>Fernando
>>
>> Christophe
>>
>>
>>>fernando, still waiting Tiger.
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.