Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 11:15:56 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 11:38:09, Mogens Larsen wrote: >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? There is no standard. >>I can not give you the answer, nobody can. > >I'm not looking for specific answers, but I do take offense to dubious opinions. Opinions are never dubious if a person means it. Opinions can be wrong or right, no need to label, mark, stamp opinions as dubious. >>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. My example is just one opinion. Take 10 chess programmers and you get 10 different opinions because there is no 100% proof, as in this case. >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. The whole topic is foggy and no one knows the 100% truth so we give it our best shot, no polictics involved. In our cooperation Christophe and I in email have written a few dozen miles of A4 text regarding how to test a program improvement or in other words how to test if an new idea is an improvement or not. You know what? We still strongly disagree. On the other hand we feel we both have come something closer to the truth. Just some minor steps. Ed >Regards, >Mogens
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.