Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 13:28:05 05/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2000 at 15:21:43, blass uri wrote: >If programmers do not like it they will prefer not to give their programs to >play. I doubt that very much, there's always going to be commercially available programs. I think most GMs can afford to buy them. >They need it if the improvement is dependent on hardware. >It is possible that some change is productive with fast hardware but is counter >productive with slow hardware >It is possible that some change is productive with tablebases and is counter >productive without them. That's probably true, but that's only relevant for slow hardware. The value of the changes should be obvious whether you use fast or very fast hardware. You know my views on auxiliary software improvements so I'm not going to repeat them. >both sides have to agree. >Not only one side. Yes that would be best, but I think that GM players are less dependent on programmers than the other way around. >people use programs for analysis and for correspondence games and they want >better programs. Yes, but they are a minority nonetheless. Is it reasonable that the ordinary user pays the development costs of improvements they don't use. Offering increase in prize money and paying for GM help isn't free. >I think that there is no reason to give programs to play at tournaments if you >give them restrictions that are not relevant for the humans who use them. Hardware restrictions could be very relevant for most of the users. Not everyone owns a Quad Xeon or something similar. Sincerely, Mogens
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.