Author: Peter Berger
Date: 16:58:46 01/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
Let's see if you follow "your" threads carefully and will see this answer ;) . When it is about the problem discussed previously I think we have actually reached an agreement, and sorry to point it out, it meant you had to change your position considerably. You raise a few new points, some of them more difficult to answer, even more when it is about your considerate and interesting emails - thanks for them. As you know I will be terribly slow to answer per usual, though I will try. Actually I'd like to strongly encourage you to post your ideas here too, because other posters know *soo* (!!!, and add some more explanation marks here) much more about chessprograms than me, notably some of those who have participated in these threads already. To the OT part: when it is about most efficient usage of CB chessprograms for analysis I think that's an equal discussion with other users and also chessprogrammers, and it's possible that you come up with new and interesting ideas, no doubt. You should just be a bit more careful when discussing how the existing engines actually work internally in a heated way with people like Ed or Uri who have produced the tools you love to use. Don't you think they might have a clearer idea on how they work than you ;) ? Given your strong love for science and its achievements - some of these guys are top-notch scientists in this field - you wanna play the creationist with them :) ? All the best my friend, Peter
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.