Author: John Lowe
Date: 15:49:17 12/29/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2002 at 17:36:51, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>On December 29, 2002 at 16:33:03, John Lowe wrote:
>
>>On December 29, 2002 at 14:37:13, Daniel Clausen wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Sargon
>>>
>>>PS. Let engines play (w/ or w/o book) but with activated screen saver is also
>>>yet another test ;)
>>
>>Sargon!!!!! My first mentor!!!!! ((((x))))
>
>That's good to hear. :) I always enjoyed playing against "Sargon 3" on the
>Amiga. It didn't have a feature-rich interface, but that only added to the
>attraction the engine had to me. :) [I never liked chess programs which require
>a certain graphic-/sound-card - sorry John! ;)]
>
Don't apologise to me - I arrived at a tournament lugging a TRS80 and a TV set!
>
>>I don't remember you being cynical! :(
>
>Sorry to disappoint you, sometimes I am. :) The last comment (about playing with
>activated screen saver) was not meant cynical really though, but more as a joke.
>(AFAIK someone ran an engine-engine test w/ activated screen saver on, which
>made me laugh out loud :p)
>
>
I noticed the smiley - honest !
>>I learned to talk asm because you had no secrets..... (:
>
>So you had to book which contained the source code of Sargon too? I got it from
>the library, but back then I didn't understand enough about Assembler to 'dig
>into the source'. Today, I know enough about Assembler not to touch it anymore.
>(no pun intended ;) [I understand you program your engine in assembler, because
>you _enjoy_ doing so. That's the best reason one could have, no matter what
>someone is doing. :)]
>
>
You're talking my language......
>>I'm wondering if it's time to ask CCC for sub-divisions in the messageboard.
>
>I think this idea came up several times.
>
>I know some message boards where this works pretty good, and others where it
>doesn't. I like the idea in general, but I don't think that the programmers of
>CCC want to do that. (based on the silence of them on these threads) Switching
>to a complete different forum system is a _huge_ amount of work...
Oh dear ):
>
>
>>I have narrow interests and a (?) sense of humour, many people are interested
>>in engine performance, some in buying/using programs, many in cutting edge
>>programming, some of us only want to swap ideas with our peers and above and
>>learn from the great and good. If I post a question with an obvious answer I
>>don't need "putting down" - however gently. I usually have more difficulty with
>>"Chessprogrammerese" than anything else.
>
>Since most people specify rather good topic-names, I can easily skip the
>articles I'm not interested in. (of course, after some responses the body of the
>message sometimes doesn't have a whole lot to do with the subject anymore, (like
>this one :) but that's normal I guess)
I don't think we're that far OT. "This is meaningless" for one is "Fantastic
idea" for another. I said my bit about programming to stay "in book" but those
who were interested in the original posting would find my posting
trivial/irrelevant :(
>
>Furthermore, after a while people find out, which peoples articles are 'worth
>reading' and which not. ('worth reading' is subjectively meant here)
>
>That together with the fact, that we don't have 200+ articles a day, makes me
>think that the current system works just fine.
>
>
If we had more confidence that our postings would find a peer-group the number
of postings could well increase (:
>>There must be a place for party games and banter?
>
>The would be the Chess "Thinkers" Forum, no? ;)
>
Not exclusively - Some regulars like to play with chess problems with a
programming slant. So long as it's not too blatantly OT there's nothing wrong
with wishing one another a happy new year/retirement/some new marbles;)
John
>Sargon
Daddy!!!!
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.