Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 05:08:52 03/01/98
Go up one level in this thread
>3rd : now - I know my " old chap " Thorsten for many years...and his >uncommon >way of approachin' things, i.e. a prog, it's benefit - or not. > >For me things get absolutely far too academic, when we start to >implement feelings + cryptical statements like the worthy of a frog, a >stone - statistics show no real.....kissin' a droid or a girl..... I only wanted to say that a number cannot represent your girl friend ! I guess Peter could not give a number for UTE although they have played 1000 of games in all the years :-) Am I correct Peter ? Ute is more than any number could imply ?! I hope Bob does not talk about HIS wife in the same way. I do not talk about chess programs in numbers. I like to present pgn-games and ask the programmer : what do you think has happened in this game. Would you please replay it ? Therefore you don't need numbers you need to replay a chess game. I guess this has more to do with chess than presenting numbers in a list ... >now please : WHERE to get an intention of the quality of the prog - if >not using those lists ?? The list is unable to talk about QUALITY. The list talks about quantity. >We gotta set up an international colloquium of people with the approved >- best feelings instead of list use - to judge the upcomoing new >progs..... >that really can't be true ! C'mon ! If the methods are somehow strange (giving fritz4 only 512 K Hash would be very strange e.g. ) the data=numbers you get are not true ! You get wrong data Elvis ! You don't get quality . All you get is wrong quantity ! > >ELVIS
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.