Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 16:48:09 12/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2002 at 12:12:09, Bob Durrett wrote: >On December 06, 2002 at 11:48:29, Rolf Tueschen wrote: > >>On December 05, 2002 at 20:44:07, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>>On December 05, 2002 at 20:05:30, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >>> >>>>On December 05, 2002 at 17:32:13, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>> >>><snip> >>> >>>>>I'm not clear what you mean when you say "Positional >>>>>Position." [Also, what is it, exactly, that is "impossible"?] >>>> >>>>Example, a position without tactics, meaning without ordinary eval advantages. >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>Well, maybe we need help from the chess programmers on this one. I do not know >>>what "ordinary eval advantages" would be. Perhaps is depends on the chess >>>engine. One engine might ordinarily identify certain kinds of advantages and >>>another chess engine might ordinarily identify a different set of kinds of >>>advantages. >>> >>>I prefer to give the chess engine programmers the benefit of the doubt on this >>>one. They probably have done a lot of work in making their position evaluation >>>code work well with a wide range of position types. But I'm just guessing, of >>>course. : ) >>> >>>Bob D. >> >>Just in passing by with only little time left let me confirm you that your way >>of thinking and treating such questions is very entertaining and sophisticated. >>Also your language is extremely friendly although other people might think that >>you are simply not an expert. > >They would be right. I am not an expert at chess programming, nor anything else, >for that matter. > >>That could be the same mistake people make when >>interpreting the famous saying of Socrates as if he had said that he were really >>stupid. ;-) >> >>I'll come back to the topic later today. >> >>Rolf Tueschen > >Thanks, Rolf, for the kind words. I believe your chess-programming topic [and >related issues] is a very good one, deserving plenty of discussion. > >Forgive me if I am not inclined toward "intellectual sparring." I am a retired >engineer. If you have ever become friends with any engineers, you will know >that they are very much oriented toward getting down to the heart of a technical >issue, such as yours. Engineers are NOT adept at intellectual sparring! They >are too "design oriented" for that. Engineers are trained and experienced in >solving technical problems, especially design problems. My wife says, "All >engineers are nerds." It's just a matter of perception, I hope. : ) > >I only wish I knew more about the modern programming languages, but perhaps am >not willing to devote "another lifetime" to becoming a competent [hot-shot] >programmer. Software is everywhere nowadays. : ) > >Bob D. It looks as if you were a British gentleman with a tendence to understatement, but that with perfection. How you could believe that with your knowledge of FORTRAN you might have a disadvantage in a debate with the modern programmers is beyond my imagination. :) Also a debate between you and me and others here is the best what could happen because that is interdisciplinary cooperation. You could bring the very best of your talents into the debate because others might go visiting on too many tangents... then you organize the recovery! Rolf Tueschen
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.