Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:56:21 10/26/03
Go up one level in this thread
On October 26, 2003 at 17:36:36, K. Burcham wrote: >On October 26, 2003 at 16:51:26, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 26, 2003 at 16:02:43, K. Burcham wrote: >> >>> >>>Ruffian!!!!!! Perola Valfridsson!!!!!! Congratulations!!!!!!!! >>> >>>1. all time world record for least amount of time writing and understanding >>>chess code capable of beating top commercial programs. >> >>You do not know it because you do not know how much time other people devote to this task. > >Not true and you know this better than most-----you ask and post as many or more >questions than most. you personnally know it takes tremendous amount of bug >fixes, troubleshooting, testing, consulting. I think this comment of yours is a >blow to many of the top programmers, you imply a top program is easy to achieve. The number of questions that I ask prove nothing because I did not talk about myself but about other people. I did not claim that I am a good programmer and the problem is that I do not spend enough time on my program because I am too much time in discussions because I enjoy too much participating in them. >> >>>2. all time world record for keeping secret while working long hours working on chess program. >> >>I see no reason to be impressed by that record and I do not know if it is a >>record. > >It is my record, I have been secret about this record, collecting data for a >long time, now I decide to reveal. I just told you it was a world record. Make a >note of it so you will know it is a world record. it will give you a goal for >your many, many hours of programming. >extremely impressive when a human can have self control during program >development to keep mouth shut when so much more passionate than most >programmers, and when his testing is showing world class play. most people >cannot do this at all, and also you know this very well, no doubt. I think that you cannot say that they cannot only because they do not do it. I see no advantage that they get by saying nothing. > >>Maybe somebody works 20 years about a secret chess program and still keep it as a secret so you do not know about it. > >Possible but not probable--world record still stands. > > >>>3. all time world record for least amount of bugs, needed patches, best >>>compatibility with operating systems, no complaints from endusers, etc. (most >>>near perfect code in my time)(for me this, by far, is the most unbelievable) >> >>How do you know? >>If you do not release versions with bugs it does not prove that you had less >>bugs in versions that you did not release. > >Yes you are correct on this one, it should have read: 3.all time world record >for least amount of bugs, needed patches, best compatibility with operating >systems, no complaints from endusers, etc., after release to public. (most near >perfect code in my time)(for me this, by far, is the most unbelievable) >> >>>4. all time world record for not asking questions from other top programmers, >>>and achieving on your own. >> >>How do you know that he did not ask other programmers questions by email? > >If you choose Uri you can change your notes to read, 4. all time record for >getting all consultants and programmers to keep all conversations secret so as >not to reveal author or program while in development stages. >> >>>5. all time world record for winning a top chess program tournament in least >>>amount of time after release. (modern day record, and including commercials) >>>6. all time world record for highest strength level achieved in shortest number of released versions. >> >>I am not impressed by these records because I do not see what is so good in not releasing versions. > >I am extremely impressed by Perola's self control to achieve these records. >You are wrong again because in this case, the strategy to not release versions, >worked to get Perola these world records and to win this latest tournament. I do not see how it helped him. He could release weaker Ruffian in 2000 and still do the same. >Maybe because the competitors did not have Ruffian for enough time to test to >improve their own program. I do not think that old Ruffian that is 200 elo weaker than Ruffian1.0.1 could help them. Uri
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.