Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 19:34:57 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 20:23:26, Sune Larsson wrote:
>On February 26, 2001 at 18:52:30, Wayne Lowrance wrote:
>
>>On February 26, 2001 at 16:59:29, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>>
>>>On February 26, 2001 at 13:36:08, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have the opinion that the best program will be the one which will perform the
>>>>best at any time controls, for the reasons I have given already and that you
>>>>failed to refute.
>>>
>>>That is just a statement without any factual content whatsoever, except the
>>>things that charaterises your program and your ambitions on its behalf. No
>>>knowledge of other programs is involved, not even evaluation of different
>>>approaches are discussed. Refuting something without content is quite difficult.
>>>
>>>Every "reason" comes from and is compared within your own frame of reference. On
>>>that basis an evaluation of "the best program" have no meaning. Just a
>>>statement, where if you list the "positive" values there's only one match and
>>>that is your own program. There's even a "What if a poor program plays the right
>>>move" explanation to account for all the possibilities.
>>>
>>>So I found your statement to be a complete load of prejudicial nonsense. Chris
>>>Whittington did something similar, but in a more detailed and convincing way.
>>>
>>>>You can have a different opinion. But instead of just trying to depreciate my
>>>>opinion ("you cannot they that", "it's not so simple", "it's a political
>>>>statement"), explain what your opinion is, and please give arguments to support
>>>>your point.
>>>
>>>The arguments are already here in this very thread and I've also made a little
>>>philosophical attempt. There's a blow to every aspect of your statement. Very
>>>poor understanding of the possible combinations that is related to
>>>pruning/selectivity, evaluation, extensions and knowledge employed by other
>>>programs. All of which is related to "style" and a factor that decides how
>>>hardware/time affects performance, whether you like it or not. Claiming that
>>>other programs suck because they choose other paths is pathetic IMO.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Mogens
>>
>>
>>Mogens you come across to me as a student who likes to argue against experience
>>and knowledge without much of either.
>>
>>sorry
>>Wayne
>
> You're hitting the bull's eye!I think pathetic was mentioned somewhere...;)
>
> Sune
Mogens reminds me of a very old Basic program called "Eliza".
The program was supposed to be able to chat with you. Actually I think it was
the winner of a kind of "Turing test" contest. It was back in 1978 or so.
As it is rather difficult to make a simple Basic program talk about every
possible subject, the authors had chosen a nice strategy: the program was
supposed to emulate the kind of chat you can have with a psychologist. If you
begin with "I think your computer chess program is not the best", the program
analyzes the sentence, finds that you are talking about "computer chess program"
and comes with a preprogrammed answer like "What's your problem with computer
chess programs".
When the program is lost and does not understand a word of your sentence, it has
a list of questions to help it "rebounce". Like "Tell me about your mother".
Like Eliza, Mogens is quite skilled in rhetoric, and I admit it, but has no clue
what he is talking about. Anyway he doesn't need to. When you talk for the
pleasure of talking, what matters is not the content, what matters is how it is
said.
Notice how he manages to avoid talking about the idea I have presented, just
saying (without explaining why) that "There's a blow to every aspect of your
statement". We have to assume here that Mogens is so clever that the "blows" are
so obvious to him that he forgot to mention them. And if you ask you are
instantly invited to re-read the whole thread. That's not arguing, that's
ping-pong! :)
From time to time, just to avoid being trivially off, he will insert on-topic
words like "extensions", "pruning". These words are floating around all over the
place, just catch them and spit them in your blah-blah, that won't hurt.
You could be talking about biochemicals, space technology, or ethnology, that
would not disturb Mogens. The good thing about rhetoric is that you can apply it
to virtually anything.
Now Mogens, show me that what I say here is wrong, and please explain to me why
there's a blow to every aspect of my statement. I'm really willing to discuss
this topic. I'm serious. I have proposed an explanation and I think you could
use your intelligence much better: read what I have written and contribute in a
constructive way.
If you could also explain to me why I'm showing "Very poor understanding of the
possible combinations that is related to pruning/selectivity, evaluation,
extensions and knowledge employed by other programs", that would be nice. I
guess you understand these matters, so it should be no problem to you to explain
what you mean?
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.