Author: Don Dailey
Date: 09:07:52 01/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 1999 at 10:18:17, Enrique Irazoqui wrote: >On January 18, 1999 at 07:56:43, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On January 18, 1999 at 05:08:54, Prakash Das wrote: >> >>>On January 17, 1999 at 17:45:17, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>Dear friend>: >>>>Your way to see things surely is shared by a lot of people here, specially >>>>programming people or technically biased people, but if we would follow your >>>>advice a sad fragmentation of interest and relationships would be the result. >>>>You see, in a community, no matter if real or virtual, a degree of confusion, >>>>mixing and weird iteration must exist in order to feed the site with the >>>>unexpected, the serendipity factor, the personal factor, the humour factor, the >>>>life factor. I am not prtogrammer but I like to read that stuff from time to >>>>time and at the same time to share even non chessic thoughts or jokes with >>>>people here. Both things feed each other. THIS IS NOT an specialized magazine, >>>>this is a site made out for and by human beings that want to share all aspects >>>>of chess computers field. >>>>Besides, you already know who are the programmers and who are not. Nobody >>>>compels you to read those writen by people like me or any other more interested >>>>in a pleasant chat about a commercial program than to discuss about the >>>>bitboards. Let all kind of flower grow toguether. No problem. Life is confusion >>>>and disorder. I like to see a degree of it in the pages of CCC. I do not want to >>>>be part of a scientific utopy. I do not want too much order and rules. I do not >>>>want to be compelled to go to a second class department in order to chat with >>>>enrique about the weather AND his relation with Fritz. >>>>With happy confusion >>>>Fernando >>> >>> Hello Fernando, >>> >>>Once again you confuse the issue with a lot of literary flowery and little else. >>> >> >>Hi Prakash: >>I did not know that "once and again" I was confusing literature with computers. > >I certainly hope you don't. Literature is too great to confuse it with zeroes >and ones. Actually, this is open to philosophical debate. No one really knows if this statement is true. In my opinion it boils down to a simple question: Are we (in principle) equivalent to computers? Literature is easily recorded in bits and bytes but of course we know there is more to it than this. But we don't know if that "more to it" can be represented in zeroes and ones. I won't attack your statement about the greatness of literature because I know you really mean the ideas represented by the literature; the literature by itself is dry and boring (and could easily take the form of zero's and ones) without an interpreter or reader. A scary thought is that our bluprints, the DNA that appears to describe us completely, turns out to be a binary code! To me this is a revelation and is very humbling. We may not be as great as we think we are. >>Maybe -maybe, only maybe- you are confusing, as many people does, to try to >>write entertainingly with writting without ideas. No exclusions are neccesary. > >True. We, the literary people, can be condescending enough when required. > >>I am not a chess programmer but am a scientist type (engineer and all)... If >>>some (serious-minded) people come here to look for programming related threads >>>one can assume they don't want to sift through hundreds of "off-topic" posts. >>>Time is a valuable commodity. >> >> >>Now iit is you yhar is falling in some kind of literary flowery: to "sift >>trought" is not the real thing but just an image. In fact just to look at the >>titles of the post is enough, or even less. I do not believe you expend more >>than half a minute in detecting the purely programming stuff posts. Usually true but not always. It can indeed be very annoying as I can testify. Not to mention distracting. When I go to study, I turn off the television. I suspect you would leave it on saying to yourself that you are not forced to watch it but you have the flexibility to glance up and artfully use osmosis to glean the content and get the best of both worlds. The same is true of these posts. It's easy for you to say that we should simply ignore the content of all other posts but this is a typical example of content that looks good on paper but doesn't translate into reality. When I study, I WILL turn off the television if I intend to get the most out of my study. Posting about wine, women and song IS an intrusion no matter how you slice it. However, having said that we all have to take a reasonable point of view. There is an implied line that we allow each other to cross for the benefit of all. When you come to my home it is understood that you can use my toilet, my toilet paper, my soap and water (and in fact I insist on this.) If the weather is cold you will use my heat and I will give you a glass of my wine and feed you. This goes unsaid. When you say hello to a stranger on the street you are being a little intrusive by pressuring him to reply and yet the stranger may even be thankful for the kindness. When you drive your car you make decisions constantly that are a give and take of intrusions and kindnesses. You put on your flashers to signal a turn which might require adjustments of many drivers behind you. Or you let someone having difficulty making a turn when you have the right of way despite the fact that you also are deciding for the people behind you that they must wait. It comes down to good citizenship. We must strike a balance and try to think more of the other person than ourselves (humility.) >Also true, and I skip them all carefully, or otherwise they would put me to >sleep on the spot. I never skip your posts, though. > >>> There are enough non-programming threads to keep you (and me) amused. As Don >>>Dailey says, in that case you maybe have rgcc=which is the equivalent of the >>>waterhole in the Serengeti imo. >>> There are no "second-class" departments as you think.. only topics pertinent to >>>chess programming and not pertinent to chess programming. It's binary. >> >> >>Finally pertinency is something to discuss. There are fuzzy limits between >>things, Prakash. But I see you love liomitis and sou you are advicing me to go >>to specific admusement sites :-) >>Well, not. Let me get my share of it here. >>Greetings from disneyland > >No, no. Talking non-technicalities about computer chess doesn't send you to that >horrible place. Keep coming with your posts, please: I love them. > >Enrique > >>Fernando >> >>> >>> Prakash Das
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.