Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 04:46:10 11/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 24, 2000 at 00:47:44, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 23, 2000 at 15:31:19, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>I perceive a note of anger in your post that is missplaced. Maybe understable, >>but missplaced. I am not and I was not shooting at you, but just wondering about >>how testing is done. Never I have tried to damage your program, in case you >>thought it was so. It is just that I was surprised to find out that lack of >>basic knowledege. No matter if something happens 0,001% of the time, >>conceptually speaking IS esential. > > > >Can you please mention something that is not essential in your sense of the >word? > >I happen to have a very different point of view about this issue, it seems. > > Something can be considered esential when it is on the base of something. To mate is esential to chess and so, to mate with certain known patterns is esential too. Then there are the so called "important" things. A matter of degree and place in the evolution of things. Once that basic thing is got, maybe it does not appear anymore as a problem in itself, but still is esential. Euiclides geo is esential for mathematicians even if they never more in his lives has to do with euclides propositions. And so and so. > > >> Of course you have your reasons and you have >>given them to me and that's fine; that is precisely what I wanted to get since >>the first post: to know why. Firt I got the "whys" of testers, now yours. And >>certainly it is not me who decide if B+N is important. No ferdinan. It is an >>issue that has been always considered important in any fair ending book. In the >>classic book "Chess Endings, Esential knowledege", by Averbach, B+N kind of >>endings gets pages from 11 to 14. So it does other kinds of endings.So it does >>in any kind of bchess book. Then clearly is not my decision, but a common sense >>decision since ever, and fully documented. > > > >So what? > >The problem is not to know if it is documented or not, the problem is to know if >it is important or not. I did not say that it is important because documented, but it is important AND documented. In a book of endings I suppose to document these mates is considered important beceause it is. > >You are surprised by the fact it is not important. I confirm: it is not >important at all. > > No. I am not surprised by that. Surprise me a lot more your stubborness in this matter. I can understand that becauise of statiscal reason you put that thing at the end of the list, but then that does not give you ground to decree that is not important. > >>Respect your priorities, you are, of course, the best judge to sort them out >>according your goals, but respect your conception of esentials I cannot agree: >>if everything is esential, as you say, then nothing is. Just simple cartesian >>logic. Finally, Christophe, nobody is laughing. At least in my case you could >>just see in me a face of wonder, but not even a smile. >>In any post you answer about Tiger, you say that comments are welcome. I hope >>mine are, also, welcome. > > > >Your initial post was a critic against the beta testers. > >Unfair critisism I would say. > Why unfair? Only good critics are fair? Fernando > > Christophe
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.