Author: José Carlos
Date: 07:30:15 07/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 15, 2002 at 10:14:16, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On July 15, 2002 at 08:29:14, José Carlos wrote: > >>On July 15, 2002 at 07:22:50, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >> >>>On July 14, 2002 at 19:39:22, José Carlos wrote: >>> >>>>On July 14, 2002 at 19:25:34, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 19:03:05, José Carlos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 18:18:32, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 18:04:56, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 07:03:35, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 04:57:21, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On July 14, 2002 at 01:38:40, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 19:05:35, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 17:16:05, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 16:57:51, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 15:09:18, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 08:02:09, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 07:15:53, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 07:09:02, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 13, 2002 at 05:35:24, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 12, 2002 at 19:16:31, José Carlos wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On July 12, 2002 at 14:56:11, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Hi CCC, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In Rebel I maintain a statistic file, on every iteration a counter is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>incremented with 1 (see column 2) representing the iteration depths Rebel has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>searched. When a new best move is found a second counter is incremented with 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(see column 3) representing how many times a new best move has been found on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>given iteration depth, between brackets the percentage is calculated. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As you can see the very first plies Rebel often changes to new best moves, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>however when the depth increases and increases the chance Rebel will change its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>mind drops and drops. From 16 plies on the chance a new better move is found is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>below 2%. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I wonder what this all means, it is still said (and believed by many) that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>doubling in computer speed gives 30-50-70 elo. That could be very well true for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>lower depths but the below statistic seem to imply something totally different, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>a sharp diminishing return on deeper depths. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Interesting also is colum 4 (Big Score Changes), whenever a big score difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>is measured (0.50 up or down) the percentage is calculated. This item seems to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>be less sensitive than the change in best move. However the maintained "Big >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Score Changes" statistic is not fully reliable as it also counts situations like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>being a rook or queen up (or down) in positions and naturally you get (too) many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>big score fluctuations. I have changed that and have limit the system to scores >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in the range of -2.50 / +2.50 but for the moment have too few games played to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>show the new statistic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anyway the number of positions calculated seem to be more than sufficient (over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>100,000) to be reliable. The origin came from extensive testing the latest Rebel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>via self-play at various time controls. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Ed, if I get this right, the second column (moves searched) is the number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of positions in which the program has reached the depth given by column 1. If it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was really "moves", there would be about 3x in depth 2 than in depth 1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the idea is that many more changes happen in low depths because the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>program is there many more times, so I (ignoring "Big Changes") calculated a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>couple of other numbers: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The ratio moves changes / moves searched and the relative % of changes from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ply to ply: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SEARCH OVERVIEW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =============== >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Depth Moves Moves Moves Changed / rel % of changes from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Searched Changed Moves Searched ply n-1 to n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 113768 0 = 0.0% 0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 113768 44241 = 38.9% 0.388870333 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 113768 34262 = 30.1% 0.30115674 77.44% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4 113194 32619 = 28.8% 0.288168984 95.69% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 113191 30697 = 27.1% 0.271196473 94.11% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6 108633 28516 = 26.2% 0.262498504 96.79% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7 108180 25437 = 23.5% 0.235135885 89.58% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8 102782 22417 = 21.8% 0.218102391 92.76% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9 82629 15400 = 18.6% 0.186375244 85.45% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>10 59032 9144 = 15.5% 0.154899038 83.11% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>11 39340 5183 = 13.2% 0.131748856 85.05% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>12 23496 2350 = 10.0% 0.100017024 75.91% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>13 12692 957 = 7.5% 0.075401828 75.39% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>14 6911 396 = 5.7% 0.057299957 75.99% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>15 4032 193 = 4.8% 0.047867063 83.54% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>16 2471 72 = 2.9% 0.029138001 60.87% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>17 1608 26 = 1.6% 0.016169154 55.49% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>18 1138 17 = 1.5% 0.014938489 92.39% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>19 921 6 = 0.7% 0.006514658 43.61% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>20 795 7 = 0.9% 0.008805031 135.16% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>21 711 1 = 0.1% 0.00140647 15.97% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>22 636 2 = 0.3% 0.003144654 223.58% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>23 574 5 = 0.9% 0.008710801 277.00% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>24 507 1 = 0.2% 0.001972387 22.64% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>25 451 3 = 0.7% 0.006651885 337.25% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>26 394 1 = 0.3% 0.002538071 38.16% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>27 343 2 = 0.6% 0.005830904 229.74% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>28 296 2 = 0.7% 0.006756757 115.88% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>29 269 0 = 0.0% 0 0.00% >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Column (D) means the probability at a certain position at a certain depth to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>get a change, according to your data, for a random position (I assume you chose >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>random positions, because this data comes from real games). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I assume that the positions that was searched to big depthes like 16 are only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>positions that the program had enough time to search in the game to depth 16. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>These positions are not random positions from games. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I expect in random positions from games to see at least 10% changes at depth 16. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's interesting that Ed, who has been doing chess programming for a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>years rely on statistical data, and you, absolute newbie to chess programming >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>can 'expect'. Quite amazing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Very telling about your lack of knowledge about interdisciplinary thinking. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, you needed several hundred posts from Dann to understand the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>concept of elo ratings. Lack of knowledge is easy to solve, while lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>intelligence is a real problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, interdisciplinary thinking has nothing to do with validating intuitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through experiments. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your habits are a bit strange for CCC. You want to insult people for their >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>intelligence? Didn't you know that this is out of fashion? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you feel insulted? Oh, sorry, I didn't insult you, really. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also you cannot prove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your visions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visions? I don't have visions. Maybe you take me for someone else ?! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But I can prove where you lack of knowledge. Look at this: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How do you know if or when I understood Elo system? Dann didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>explain anything to _me_, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't feel bad because Dann had to explain that to you. It can happen to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>everybody. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He was the only one having the courage to give his verdict about SSDF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Elo system - _with_ me! We two the only ones. And you were dreaming of his role >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as _my_ teacher? That's funny. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm glad you enjoied Dann's lessons. Dann is very good at that. I also always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>enjoy his posts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You do not understand what validity means... ;-) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good argument! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You have no idea of what interdisciplinary means too. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damn, you leave me without words! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are the typical expert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>with narrow views. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for calling me expert... bah, just a little degree in computer science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>and a few publications don't make me an expert... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do not insult Uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't. He knows it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, do you feel the need to defend him? Don't you think he is capable to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>defend himself? I think it's you who is insulting Uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because he knows a lot about chess. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The first thing where we agree! Cheers! >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>what I mean? Chess is the basis for computerchess. :) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Words of wisdom... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only interdisciplinary help could enlighten you. If you have questions, please >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>tell me, I'll try to do my best for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much. I'll ask you anything I don't understand. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>No reason to become so upset only because I told you not to insult Uri. >>>>>>>>>>>>>You have insulted him on his lack of intelligence >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Uri knows I didn't. It seems _you_ are not capable to understand. I'm sorry, >>>>>>>>>>>>I'm not gonna explain _you_ what I said to Uri. He understood. That's enough. >>>>>>>>>>>>Please, stop defending him from nothing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You did not insult me for lack of intelligence but you said that you find it >>>>>>>>>>>strange that I disagree with Ed when Ed has a lot of experience about chess >>>>>>>>>>>programming and I am new in the task of chess programming. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I think that the fact that I am new in chess programming was not relevant for >>>>>>>>>>>the discussion because I do not need to be a programmer to have an opinion about >>>>>>>>>>>data that everyone can see after hours of analyzing. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I doubt if Ed has more experience than me in giving programs hours to analyze >>>>>>>>>>>and looking if the program changes it's mind. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>The data that Ed gave is from games and if programs can get depth 16 >>>>>>>>>>>in games then the position is relatively simple so the program usually does not >>>>>>>>>>>change it's mind. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Note that I believe in diminishing returns but I still expect significant gain >>>>>>>>>>>from hardare in the near future. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>I believe that the difference in comp-comp games at 24 hours per move may be >>>>>>>>>>>only 40 elo from doubling the speed and not 70 elo but 40 elo is still >>>>>>>>>>>significant. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> My comment was about you "expecting" where Ed was providing experimental data, >>>>>>>>>>nothing more nothing less. Then I asked you for data, you posted some logs and I >>>>>>>>>>find them interesting. That's all. Rolf just invented some nonsense to create >>>>>>>>>>mess. That's his style. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> José C. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Some people find it helpful to crucify the reporter who reported their own >>>>>>>>>mistakes. That is telling! You brought the indecent argument that Ed were >>>>>>>>>programmer and Uri NOT. That alone is telling. Because the one had nothing >>>>>>>>>to do with the other in the question that was debated here. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Uri understood it. I've already explained it to you. I won't explain it again. >>>>>>>>I'm not so patient as Dann. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Another change of the truth. Uri wrote the almost exact phrase I addressed to >>>>>>>you. Period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Even now you didn't have the "idea" to apologize. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _You_ should apologize. But I don't care at all what you do. You want to mess >>>>>>>>and you do it. Well, if you enjoy that... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You should stop to project your character onto others. Period. >>>>>> >>>>>> _You_ should. Period. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Instead you created a new >>>>>>>>>insult against me. I should be responsible for the mess you brought yourself >>>>>>>>>into. That is telling! Very telling. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You keep on looking at the mirror, instead of looking at me. Your words tell >>>>>>>>about yourself. I find it funny. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This is the proof. Your confession that you find it funny, you enjoy it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I confess I enjoy seeing yourself talking to the mirror. >>>>>> >>>>>>>You enjoy a mess. >>>>>> >>>>>> No I don't. I've been posting here for some years. People know I don't. Nobody >>>>>>believes your lies. >>>>>> >>>>>>>_Your_ mess. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again talking to the mirror. >>>>>> >>>>>>>All what I did was the reporting and the warning that >>>>>>>you should stop it and apologize to Uri. Now you are confused about yourself. >>>>>>>Again, that could be healed by your apology. To Uri, not me of course. I'm just >>>>>>>the observer, you cannot insult me at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> Again talking to the mirror. >>>>>> >>>>>>>For the readers I repeat what you did wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> First you defend Uri (implying he can't himself), now you care for the >>>>>>readers. Man, you must be a saint. >>>>>> >>>>>>>You attacked Uri by telling him >>>>>>>that he were no programmer >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop this fantasy, please. I know Uri wrote Movei, which is quickly improving. >>>>>>Why do you think Uri is no programmer? >>>>>> >>>>>>>and he still dared to differ from Ed, who were a >>>>>>>programmer indeed, with opinions. >>>>>> >>>>>> I repeat I'm not so patient as Dann to explain this again to you. Read >>>>>>previous post for an explanation or keep showing your unability to understand it >>>>>>again and again. >>>>>> >>>>>>>This attack is indecent and should not >>>>>>>be done here in CCC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good! Now you give me lessons how to behave in a forum! I'm so interested. >>>>>>I'll search rgcc archives for more lessons. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>>>> >>>>>> José C. >>>>> >>>>>Here is what Uri wrote to you: >>>>> >>>>>"You did not insult me for lack of intelligence but you said that you find it >>>>>strange that I disagree with Ed when Ed has a lot of experience about chess >>>>>programming and I am new in the task of chess programming." >>>> >>>> Nothing to add to what Uri said. It's crystal clear. >>>> >>>>>Again, bringing forward such arguments is indecent. >>>> >>>> Really? Your above statement says: experiece doesn't count at all and it is >>>>indecent to make conclusions out of it. People can draw their own conclusions >>>>about your seriousness. >>>> >>>>>Saying one is programmer and >>>>>a very experienced one and the other not so experienced or beginner and so on. >>>> >>>> So what? I'm a begginer to chess programming also. The programs I write in my >>>>work have nothing to do with chess, so I only have Averno as a hobby. So what >>>>now? Do you think I'm insulting myself? Are you gonna defend me from me? :) >>>> >>>>>And you did the same with me in older discussion about SSDF and Elo and also >>>>>now. >>>> >>>> Again. Don't feel insulted because Dann had to explain you how Elo system >>>>works. >>>> >>>>>The truth is that statistics and things like that have nothing to do with >>>>>computerchess programming qualities. >>>> >>>> That's a good proof of how much do you know about computerchess and >>>>statistics. Well, maybe Dann didn't explain it so well after all. >>>> >>>>>This is not my own opinion, it's a simple truth. >>>> >>>> Oh, yes. You don't have opinions, you have simple truths. >>>> >>>>>Good idea to search rgcc. In special read my messages from August 2001 on. >>>>>All the old stuff from 1996 to 1998 is expressed by a virtually 22 y. >>>>>old young man, what many people misunderstood. >>>> >>>> :) >>>> "I'm not wrong. People don't understand me". Good argument. >>>> >>>>>Please read also my Mosaik on >>>>>Schachcomputerwelt, in German unfortunately. The address is >>>>>http://members.aol.com/mclanecxantia/myhomepage/rolfsmosaik.html >>>> >>>> Sorry, I don't speak german (lack of knowledge?). >>>> >>>>>You may have the final word. Because you are a chessprogrammer. ;) >>>> >>>> No, please, don't leave me with the final word. Continue stating your simple >>>>truths. >>>> >>>>>Rolf Tueschen >>>> >>>> José C. >>> >>>Since I diagnosed that logic is not the biggest talent of my opponent in the >>>game above and that I saw that he's a real programmer, I ask this to all, what >>>do you think of what is the exact definition of being a computerchess >>>programmer, how big is the synergy effect of computerchess programming on >>>general thinking processes and how large the part of own code should be that >>>we start to speak of a computerchess programmer. >>> >>>Note please that this is a question to all, not primarily to my opponent above, >>>who is very susceptible to magic thinking. For example real experts could >>>perhaps explain how important the imagination is above straight perception for >>>programmers. Are there certain parts in programming where you qua defining have >>>the power to establish reality against different realities of other collegues? >>>Is it possible to establish even different forms of logic? >>> >>>Rolf Tueschen >> >> I won't answer your lies, since everybody can read above and see that, for >>example, "magic thinking" is not something I'm susceptible to, but something you >>invented for me. >> Anyway thanks for your lessons on what a beeing a good programmer means. >> >> José C. > >Magic thinking is a polite paraphrasing! Perhaps you get it now -> > >Look at this: you insulted Uri for having less experience in chess programming >(!) than Ed, So _you_ believe having less experience is an insult. Incredible. >but Uri was talking about something where the experience of >_programming_ was no point at all, therefore you attacked _me_ (!), >insulting me that Dann had to explain to me something So _you_ believe needing an explanation is an insult. Incredible. >in hundreds (!!) of posts. However the truth was that Dann was one of very few who _supported_ my critic of SSDF, :) Incredible. >therefore a fact _you_ were angry about me ?! >... who had written in R.G.C.C. (!!) Any reader interested can read above, in this post, why I mention rgcc when this Rolf tries to teach me lessons how to behave in a forum. >So backwards, it's because I have written in R.G.C.C. you have the right >to insult Uri for having less experience than Ed in computerchess programming? :-)) Finally you totally lose contact with reality. >My question was if such looped *"magic"* thinking were favorable for chess >programming. > >Rolf Tueschen Congratulations. You're brilliantly showing your logic. 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.