Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Board games and mathematical complexity: a poll

Author: Richard Pijl

Date: 10:44:55 12/11/02

Go up one level in this thread


>>For any of these questions you will get a different ranking. As I don't know all
>>games and certainly don't know the status in the programming of these games I
>>can't answer your question for all of them though. Perhaps the easiest to answer
>>would be ranking number 2. I think Vincent already did that.
>>
>>Richard.
>
>I do not know but I automatically do not believe things that vincent say.
>He need to apologize about a lot of things that he said.

These are two different things. I try to keep emotions separated from what is
meant to be said. By quoting Vincent here I meant that I agree with him (at
least for the games that I know, which are Chess, Go and Othello).

>
>For example he said that verified null move is even worse than R=2 and based on
>hyatt's report it worked in crafty.

That has nothing to do with _this_ subject

>I think that maybe it is a mistake to develop a chess program if the effort of
>chess programmers is bigger than the effort of go programmers because I see no
>reason to assume that it is possible to earn more from chess programs than from
>go programs but unfortunately chess is the only game out of these games that I
>know and I do not like the idea of programming for a game that I know almost
>nothing about.
>

Chess programming is an addictive hobby for most. Mostly because we like
programming and chess. I do not expect to earn more from programming a chess
program than for solving a 5000 pieces jig-saw puzzle. I even pay for it as I
keep my hardware up to date, subscribe to ICC and also took ADSL to connect to
it. All just for chess. Does that make me a fool?

Richard



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.