Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 11:37:27 06/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 07, 2001 at 14:20:46, Christophe Theron wrote: >On June 06, 2001 at 21:27:48, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Chris: >>Yes, of course, some info too, but the degree of it depends of the issue, the >>importance it has, etc. Clearly Burgess does not think computer chess deserves >>some much attention and care with technical aspects of any kind more than that >>he offered. Besides he must think in what readers want to read. The journalist >>is not writting for an specific public, but for a mass public where all kind of >>expertisse or lack of it pay the cent to get the newspaper. Average reader gives >> a shit about chess computers and so if you ever are going to interest him about >>something of this field, it will be trough the sort of thing Burgess wrote. I >>would consider Burgess not a talented man, as clearly he is, but a pedant and an >>idiot if he ever was going to write about hash tables to that public. > > > >I wouldn't be surprised that you assume, as I am deep into the technical areas >of computer chess, that I am blaming the journalist for not giving technical >details such as processor, hash tables, search algorithms, and so on... No, no and no. I know you are not a dude. > >But it's not the case. > >Listen, when I participate in human tournaments here, with Chess Tiger for Palm >for example, I have to face a hundred times per day the same basic questions. In >this case I'm able to answer to the people without saying any technical word. > >You can say a lot of interesting things without boring the readers with >technical words. > >You could for example answer the most basic questions people ask over and over >again. Yes, but perhaps you miss a point: Burgess was not trying to explain how computer chess is, with or without techical words, but just talking of his game againts a chess program. Rhat is the core of his story. > >Here is the most frequently asked question I have to answer 20 times a day when >my program makes a public appearance: "so you have programmed all the possible >chess positions into your computer?". > >I also believe that the general audience is not computer-illiterate any more, >and a few explanation related to what people already know cannot hurt. Right, It could have been done. But the fact he chose not to does not makes of his article a shit, as many people here say it is. For >example the guy could have said that this Fritz was much more powerful than a PC >because it was using a computer which is composed of 8 PCs working together. > > > > >>In fact, that's the kind of mistakes beginners journalist makes: they try to >>"teach"; they try to deliver too much. So they bore everybody but himself and >>two geeks. > > > >I think another basic mistake is to disgust the audience from a topic. That's >what this article does. The bottom line is: "computers are unbeatable at chess, >so who cares about this game anymore". I am sure people was not disgusted. I was not, Tim F. was not and other guys here were not. And we are, in a degree, part of this community of savvy people. You can bet the article liked, outside this place, a lot more of people. > >It would have been more constructive to mention that while the computer programs >are strong when they run on fast computers, they still have some major >weaknesses. And that on slow computers they are not that strong. > >I guess this is too technical? No, no. Even I can understand that. > >>So a last point: journalism is not about writting about what you really know, >>but to write to people that does not know and have no reasons to know. So you >>give them the little drop you can and you have. >>What else? > > > >Give some accurate informations maybe? > > > > Christophe Well, at last he have had our yearly fight. Soft, but good for stretching the arms...:-) Fernando
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.