Author: José Carlos
Date: 10:32:30 08/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 2001 at 12:55:44, Roy Eassa wrote: >On August 16, 2001 at 04:31:52, Thorsten Czub wrote: > >>On August 15, 2001 at 17:53:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On August 15, 2001 at 17:37:10, Roy Eassa wrote: >>> >>>>On August 15, 2001 at 17:05:22, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>A very entertaining contest. >>>>> >>>>>The comments of the IM's should be worth their weight in gold for the engine >>>>>programmers. Nothing like a good public scathing to make someone perk up and >>>>>take notice. >>>>>;-) >>>> >>>> >>>>I read all the IMs' comments. They are indeed VERY entertaining, but I wonder. >>>>They are talking about the programs as if they (the programs) were people. How >>>>Fritz and Junior are brothers and play the same. How they are disappointed in >>>>Hiarcs because they think it plays so well normally. How Rebel Tiger is unsound >>>>and relatively weak, whereas Gambit Tiger is sounder (!). How CM8000 is a good >>>>tutor for kids, but they (the IMs) are surprised it's doing well and shocked >>>>that it could ever beat Hiarcs. How Genius plays "the same" as the Tiger >>>>programs. >>>> >>>>As we all know, these characteristics are bogus. It's all statistics. A single >>>>game between programs can result in almost any style of game and any result. >>>>They'd have to look at a 20-game match between two programs before any comments >>>>about styles and relative strengths they (the IMs) make would have any validity. >>>> Failing that, it's kind of like reading your horoscope: it may sound plausible, >>>>but it's all hokum. >>>> >>>>My $0.02. >>> >>>I agree with you on the personifications. >>>The stuff useful for the programmers will be stuff more like: >>> >>>"Look at this idiotic move..." >>> >>>"Doesn't this program know anything about pawn structure?" >>> >>>"I'd have to give that move a ??" >>> >>>etc. >>> >>>The general impressions will be far less valuable. It is the specific details >>>that merit keen attention. >> >>programmers wait for something they will never get. >>source code. >> >>between 2 groups of different people, it needs to translate the ideas in mind. >>you cannot wait until chess players talk in source code to you. >>if you listen to programmers they talk bits and bytes. no other >>chess player is interested or is able to understand. >> >>it needs to find a language all understand. >> >>so far i have seen NO comment of any programmer at all. >>do they have a mouth ? >>play they chess ? >>do they talk to their family when they come home ? >>programmers seem to be like plants. you can talk with them, but they >>do not answer. if you be nice to them they grow. but they will rarely move >>to something else. nor react at all. > > >There are two categories of people: those who divide people into categories and >those who don't. So, according to your statement, you belong to the first category :) José C.
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.