Author: Don Dailey
Date: 14:00:21 05/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
>>Again, you are not taking a wholistic view of things, but >>pretending chess involves only a subset of skills that YOU >>consider important. > >No - if I would do so, I would not like Nimzo or ChessTiger. Or even >understand that Junior won a good championship. >I would attack these programs too. But i do not. Since these programs >don't produce such an amount of nonsense. >Is this evidence enough ? Or how can I concinve you that i do >differenciate ? >How do you think was I able to outplay many 40/120 tournament games >with Chess Tiger if this program would play as miserable as Fritz ? >I can asnwer for you: the other programs play better (hint: better is >subjective and means: IMO) so I can easily watch them playing chess. > >>Why don't you just come clean, recognize the facts and then >>try to learn something from them? > >I see no facts that would convince me. I have Junior, Nimzo98, Tiger and >Fritz. >Fritz is the weakest program. It plays the worst moves. And plays >senseless moves. It has no idea about the game. The other programs do >better although they are fast-searchers. I seem to have slightly offended you by attacking your open-mindnesses. But you never fail to go on and on about how much Fritz sucks. I do not see a good reason for this considering that Fritz is a proven program and is either the very best, or right there among them with little difference in strength. If you want to complain about it's playing style, that is a separate issue all together and since it's purely a subjective issue I would not argue about it. >> You >>seem so very close minded about how things should be done. > >I take this as an insult. >I am not close minded. >If you write me a chess program that is a fast searcher but plays good >chess, I will be delighted. To call me close minded because I do not >like 1 from 4 (ChessTiger, Nimzo98, Junior) fast searching programs >looks a little offending in my mind. But i forgive you because you are a >nice guy. No insult intended. I purposely chose my wording "you SEEM so ..." to allow room for error on my part. >> I >>have no problem with the approach you advocate, I'm completely >>open to it or anything that work, or look like it has a chance of >>working. Like your approach. Why can't you be equally open to >>other viewpoints? > >I am. I guess you misunderstand me. You have overseen or forgot that I >was completely positively surprised about Nimzo last year when I bought >Mchess7 and Nimzo98. >I was even more enthusiastic about Nimzo98 than about Mchess. >Maybe you forgot this. No problem. >I am sure you are more open than I am. You have more knowledge and >massive practise about computerchess. I am only doing a hobby. And I >have no goal to become always right about a topic. But why do you >believe I would not be open to someones viewpoints ? This hurts me. Sorry. People with strong opinions like you and me can sometimes appear to be not so open minded. I do not always agree with you and you tend to back up everything you say with feelings and subjectivity more than I do. But these are things you trust more than I do. How many times times have you said something like, "I don't need to see the results to know it sucks, I can tell by looking at the moves?" Right away your judgement is suspect in my eyes. But do not confuse this with imagination which I do NOT accuse you of lacking. Imagination is a wonderful tool for new ideas but at some point, the engineer must go to work. If I had to choose a team to develop a strong program I would not use you for evaluating or testing but instead to supply imagination (generate ideas.) That is your profile as I see it. >Did you forgot out talks at Aegon ? There I found - yes : don is very >open minded. For me the WAY a program plays is important. Not how it >gets this >way. I am not that much focussed only on RESULTS. If a program gets the >same results (against computers) but plays worse I will of course buy >the other programs. I enjoyed very much our talks at Aegon and the games we played. But as you say, I am certainly more results oriented than you. I don't care how any program does it, as long as it can do it. I might feel differently if I were in the commercial market, I might lean a little toward style since some players value this. Analogy. I am a tennis player. I absolutely love it and get to play many different styles of opponents. Sometimes I get beat by players that appear to be much weaker, sometimes I beat players that seem very very strong and correct and beautiful strokes etc. But I never complain when I get beat by the ugly player, I know I will either beat him next time, or I won't if he's better. I don't care who I play if he can beat me and I don't care HOW I get beat, the challenge to me is overcoming this IF I CAN. Sometimes I cannot and I have to concede that this player is better. But I've learned something important from these "ugly" players that I might miss from the "beautiful" ones. And this makes me more results oriented. You focus more on the process itself and see more art in it than I do. But that of course doesn't mean I don't appreciate beauty. I know other players who absolutely will not play these guys, they demand opponents with a pretty game because they do not wish to adapt, or it offends their sense of aesthetics. - Don
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.