Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:34:19 12/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 20, 2001 at 07:43:20, Thorsten Czub wrote: >i don't think computerchess dies. >IMO we are in the moment seeing interesting developments. > >the paradigm changes. >century4 plays different chess than century3. > >junior7 plays different chess than junior6a. > >gambit-tiger plays different chess than rebel-tiger. > >don't you see. >the program shift their behaviour. and mostly the result is a better quality >of chess. > >even fritz7 has to adapt otherwise it will lose against the new paradigm >programs. > >userinterfaces become boring and uninteresting because all chess base programs >HAVE THE SAME interface. this is a kind of LACK OF VARIATY problem i told about >years ago. it cannot be FOR the customers to present any chess program in the >same interface. >it can only make the market less interesting. > >the same for the HOW they play. > >we lost many on the way. people who were in charge for making computerchess >INTERESTING. > >We lost Thomas Nitsche, Julio Kaplan, Marty Hirsch, Mark Uniacke, >Chris Whittington, ... I don't think Mark is "lost". There's a Hiarcs 8 beta somewhere... Instead, Richard Lang seems to be "lost". >of course this makes the computerchess community boring. > >Because these people gave something. they gave different ideas. > >Different ways to go. > >I don't think computerchess dies. but we have to take care we do not lose even >more people for the god of commercialisation. making money and computerchess >is a two sided sword. > >i would be glad to see dave k. and others come back and contribute something to >the community. BTW, if Dave isn't programming now, who is the author of the actual Novag computers? 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.