Author: Eugene Nalimov
Date: 09:29:38 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2003 at 03:59:04, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 30, 2003 at 14:59:53, Eugene Nalimov wrote: > >>On December 30, 2003 at 02:24:50, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>[...] >>> >>>It is better to have a bug, but a stronger program, then no bugs, >>>but a weak program! >>> >>>Sandro > >Hi Eugene, >> >>*If* you are interested in a result (win, draw, or loss), and not in a beautiful >>game, than probably it's better to have a consistently playing and well-debugged >>program than one that usually plays better but regularly blunders. > >Sorry, but you missed something: > >1) the bug we had did not came out in hundreds of games. >2) we only had one bug which has been removed later. Yes, and according to the *written* rules of the tournament that bug should cost you half a point in the *critical* game -- and world title with that half a point. Happy New Year, too. Thanks, Eugene >3) I am interested only in WINNING all games and KILLING the opponents >everytime! I get upset when we do not! > >I must add that I want to congratulate with you about the endgames tables which >I find fantastic! > >I wish you a wonderful 2004! > >Ciao, > >Sandro >> >>Thanks, >>Eugene
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.