Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Proving something is better

Author: Vincent Diepeveen

Date: 20:10:22 12/17/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 17, 2002 at 20:19:25, Omid David Tabibi wrote:

Omid,

  a) you quote articles like from ernst a heinz without
     comparing with what he concludes is better. So you
     use shopping behaviour to use that what you can use
     to conclude is better.
  b) you claim ownership of an algorithm that is not yours
     and even invent a new name for it.
  c) you obviously do not see that chess is about
     the time you have to find a move and not the search depth
     to find a move, despite that i have never seen a world
     championship computerchess where the arbiters gave everyone
     plenty of time to reach 15 ply.
  d) being a very bad programmer as well because you missed
     an obvious transposition bug in the 'algorithm' and also
     missed obvious bugs in the program with regarding to
     branching factor.
  e) any careful question to compare with adaptive nullmove
     and/or to compare search time you simply *ignore*. No matter
     the person who asked you to do it.

Especially e) shows very clearly how you socially are.

May you get blown up soon by a terrorrist,
Vincent

>Vincent,
>
>I will not waste my time discussing with someone who has not read the paper at
>all, and whom is famous for the comment:
>
>    "It is impossible, because I couldn't do it."
>
>which is repeated regarding every idea/suggestion/innovation anyone comes up
>with, regarding any subject, at anytime.
>
>Believe me or not, there exist things that you can't do them, but they are still
>possible.
>
>So, please read the article (not just the title), implement the algorithm, and
>then ask the questions that really bother you; or stop wasting our time.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Omid.



This page took 0.04 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.