Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 14:55:34 05/18/01
Go up one level in this thread
I just have to answer this, I apologize beforehand that I break my promise to shut up in this thread, but now it's more of a meta-discussion. On May 18, 2001 at 00:51:11, David Rasmussen wrote: >I can't give you any formal definition, but I can't say (as I have) that I >deliberately won't consider a real program such as a chess program, an >algorithm, espcially not when we're talking about complexity analysis, because >the answer is trivial and uninteresting: they're all O(1). No, they are not. Your comparison is flawed and irrelevant, but I have told you so before and given arguments, so I won't plauge CCC with repetitions. And I suspect you won't give that formal definition because you have trouble excluding real programs... >I'm sorry that you're irritated. They're not meant as personal insults. >However, I do have feelings involved when I feel that someone chooses a silly >interpretation of a key concept in a discussion, that is different from most >others, Bull. Please acknowledge once and for all that you have no bloody idea what "most others" think. Your repeated attempts to lend credibility from some imagined majority are pathetic and totally irrelevant. Anyone with some knowledge of argumentation theory will see right through it and just think less of you for it. > and bases the discussion on that, especially when the interpretation is >ignored, and the statements are purported to be the only formally correct true. We have a saying in Sweden that you could learn from. Perhaps there is a similar saying in English? Translated, it would become something like: "You shouldn't throw rocks in a house of glass." By the way, you are wrong, as I have acknowledged that your view is also valid. You can do complexity analysis of general alpha-beta and just assume that chess is one input, with the possibility of inputing more complex games. >That is annoying. And it's this same attitude that makes you insinuate that I >don't have any arguments. I have at least as many and as good arguments as you. No, sorry, you don't. You just try to use cheap, intellectually dishonest tricks, such as implying you represent a majority and such as discrediting my view with derogatory statements. *That* is your main arguments, *that* is your "contribution" to the discussion. Everything else I can think of, others wrote before you.
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.