Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 14:24:27 10/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2000 at 17:09:19, Fernando Villegas wrote: >What I register in the first place, dear Czub, is that, no matter what, you get >into it and find a reason to treat all of us here as near morons or something of >the sort. Sometimes we are bean counters, some times wee do not se certain >things you of course saw, some times we believe in statistics instead of >intuitive jumps from just one move. >Maybe you are right and this move show Gambit is really different, but maybe >only show that some extreme settings produces some different kind of moves in a >generally speaking "normal" proggram. BTW, I suppose that with belief you mean >"speculative" evaluation. Well, I think that in some sense any chess calculation >is, in a degree, an speculative evaluation. It is so as much you must stop >search lot before the game ends. Any calculation that does not exhaustive is >speculative. So, at the end, the real difference could be just different ways to >be speculative, different kind of guesses. The quiescent search is in its >enterity a kind of disguised guess. It was invented, I believe -sorry, I >speculate- by the Spracklen and implemented the first time for micros in sargon >II. And if it was not invented by them, someone else did in the same time, 25 >years ago in any case. Nothing too new under the sun. >Cheers >Fernando if you really believe that the stuff that happens with cstal or with gambit-tiger is on the level of sargon, just a few years later, than you don´t see my point. but then this proves that what you projects in me what i would think of you is right. because when you believe what you say, really, then you behave the way you project in me. sorry. but your behaviour proves your own prejudices. in my opinion behaviour seen like in the game tiger-nimzo - on this level of strength in computerchess - is something complete different than what we know from bean-counter paradigm or hyatt-paradigm or fritz or choose whatever program. if you believe it is just a different degree of a "normal program" than of course i am very happy, because nothing would be speaking against the fact that in future many programs will play the way gambit-tiger and cstal do. i think you don't understand me. i don´t quote this exampel or put the finger on it to call you morons. my intention is different. i don´t want that you oversee it. i am sure the nimzo team HAS seen it. the way i understand that kramnik-kasparov is a big event, and intertesting to follow with chess-programs, i do not see it as as important as gambit-tiger-step for computerchess. look. i have no intention to make you down and put me high. i have done nothing. only replayed the game, saw the move jeroen put my nose into, and found: thats it. just my idea about it. i did not say you are stupid nor anything else. only that it is typical that bean-counters do not register what has happened. its normal that search-based ideologys do not see when their paradigm gets shifted. if they would see, they would not follow their values. so calm down. and begin to think. imo what happens to cstal or gambit-tiger will happen in a few years to all chess programs. because it is the way to increase chess-strength. if you believe it is a normal question of degree and nimzo is just a few degrees beneath, or fritz... ok. believe in whatever you want. i did not call you anything. it was YOU projecting name calling in my intentions. you have to live with your own projections.
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.