Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 11:17:23 08/29/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 29, 2000 at 14:10:26, Ernst A. Heinz wrote: >Hi Diepeveen, > >>Especially seeing what the shortcomings were is very interesting for >>the future. That it looks like a big excuse for what is wrong, as >>dr. Ernst A. Heinz suggested after previous report in 1999 >>sure isn't the truth. Without analysis you >>can't continue. In fact how many THINGS have you read about the >>WMCC yet? Probably nothing except the results of the games and >>some people who still call shredder 'lucky' to win the world championship >>tournament for the 3rd time. Without seeing things that are wrong or went >>wrong you can't improve anyway. Note that what is in here is MY VIEWPOINT. >>It is NOT the viewpoint of any organisation or company. If people disagree >>and quote, please let them not quote a single line, but the whole picture; >>the reason for that is quite obvious: i'm born in a country where we don't >>speak much english, so misformulations of a single line should be taken >>with a bit of salt. It's the whole picture that makes the story! >> >>Note that the basic difference between Heinz and me seems to be that i can play >>some chess, about 2254 points higher rated and therefore i realize very clearly >>what's happening in the computer chess world, where Heinz still says that it >>is not proven that knowledge works! > >The difference between "Heinz" and you seems to be that "Heinz" >does not take anything for granted unless sufficiently proven, >whereas you, "Diepeveen", hold your personal convictions as >divine truths which you feel enlightened to spread like a >crusader. > >My reply to your garbage above is simply as follows. > >1. I never said that knowledge does not work. Actually, I have > always supported a balanced "fast and smart" approach. At the > same time, I do neither believe in knowledge as the one and > only solution to all open challenges in computer chess. > >2. Although you are obviously unable to grasp and remember what > I have already told you about my own chess playing, here we go > again: I no longer play competitive chess becasue I deem it far > too time consuming; yet, my last OTB rating was around 100 Ingo > (the then German rating system) which translates to more than > 2000 ELO if I am not mistaken. So much about your stupid claim > of rating 2254 points higher ... > >Do I need to say more about your other claims? > >=Ernst= How many world championships must a program which has superior knowledge somewhere still win before you believe it? Note that i always said thatyou need like 10-12 ply anyway. After that searching any deeper doesn't matter at all only knowledge is important. Obviously when searching with the same knowledge then searching deeper helps a lot. That's a simple form of induction. The whole 'crafty goes deep' clearly was real bad. Any chessplayer can see this. Your 2000 rating i can't find on the FIDE list by the way. just a PV that changes is no proof a chessplayer will ever accept. Note that i sure want to mention that most of your research is real good research when compared to most other researches, and that writing a book like you did is real good. Note that what i mentionned is NOT CRAP. it is a report about what happened in WMCC. I'll never see you write anything like that.
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.