Author: Steven Edwards
Date: 04:10:53 03/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 2004 at 06:27:36, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 25, 2004 at 00:06:38, Steven Edwards wrote: >>I've selected the move 4... c6. No expectation is available. The predicted >>variation is: (4... c6). A total of 0.24 processor seconds were used for > >Don't you mean "zero point twenty-four processor seconds..."? > >>the >>selection. The search tree has one interior node, thirty-two leaf nodes, and >>thirty-three total nodes. My selection rate is one hundred thirty-seven nodes >>per second, and my average node time is seven milliseconds. I've ended the >>selection process at 2004.03.25 00:05:15. > >Again why do you try and ruin a good thing? >This should be "five minutes and fifteen seconds", and I would also expect "the >twenty-fifth of march two-thousand-and-four". (Almost. The correct subphrase would be "two thousand four" without the conjunctive.) The above makes slightly better sense when remembering that Symbolic has the option of passing all of its narrative to a speech synthesizer during the search. I'd rather hear "one hundred thirty-seven" than "one three seven". It's interesting to note that the idea for automated formatting of cardinal and ordinal number strings in ChessLisp is lifted directly from the Common Lisp spec which has the same features. Indeed, Common Lisp also has a format specifier for selecting and applying singular/plural English suffixes based on the value of an argument. I've omitted this pluralizer from ChessLisp, just as I left out Common Lisp's Roman numeral formatter.
This page took 0.01 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.