Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:38:09 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 11:08:33, Ed Schröder wrote: >That has to be seen, you can not draw that conclusion. What conclusion? >I have given the example of adding new chess knowledge to the program >keeping in mind the current state of art of nowadays fast hardware. > >What if that "thought behind" (the fast hardware) is a WRONG approach? Wrong by what or who's standards? >I can not give you the answer, nobody can. I'm not looking for specific answers, but I do take offense to dubious opinions. >It is all so complicated and foggy, even after almost 20 years. Yes, I think it is very foggy indeed, which is why I prefer your example. In my mind Christophe's opinion is comparable to a "political" statement. With the purpose of elevating attributes that are associated with his program and degrading elements that are not. The result is simplistic and superficial IMO. Regards, Mogens
This page took 0.01 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.