Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:01:41 01/14/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 14, 2005 at 14:12:45, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >On January 14, 2005 at 06:37:42, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On January 14, 2005 at 02:42:48, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2005 at 05:48:52, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 23:43:58, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 17:47:48, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 13:57:14, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>What I am trying to say is I don't care what the number is. I picked 100 >>>>>>>because it was nice, round, and big. The *POINT* is that I think the 6-man >>>>>>>tables will be a much bigger strength gain then the 5-man tables. I think it >>>>>>>will be quite considerable; time will tell what the actual number is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I can't stand people who can't see the big picture and get caught up on every >>>>>>>stupid detail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>anthony >>>>>> >>>>>>I can't stand people that thknk 6 man EGTB's are the "ultimate" >>>>>>Material WILL change; then, you are BACK to the 5 Piece EGTB's! >>>>>>What is sooo hard to understand? >>>>>>Tooo complicated for ya? >>>>> >>>>>I dont think you seem to understand the programmatic value of EGTB - so it would >>>>>be quiet pointless for you to argue in this case ! >>>>>Am I right ? :) >>>>> >>>>>I can underttand a discussion w.r.t the latency from IO to computatinal >>>>>efficiency of "evaluating" perfecting , etc - but your arguments are quiet >>>>>"different" and hilarious ;) >>>>> >>>>>Mridul >>>> >>>>Mridul - >>>> >>>>you seem to have mistaken this place for a computer chess club. It is the >>>>technical discussion which would be "different" here - maybe even hilarious ... >>>> >>>>:) >>>> >>>>Vas >>> >>> >>>Seeing the long threads above - I think I am begining to appreciate your >>>comments more , though you meant it as a joke :) >>>The archives have brilliant discussions (some of which are "hot" , but brilliant >>>nonetheless) on technical aspects of chess programming - nowadays I dont see >>>much of that happening. >>>I am partly to blame (like maybe all of us ?!) - I dont post anything much >>>myself :( >>> >>>Mridul >> >>I know what you mean - the CCC archives are really great. What happened to this >>place? >> >>One problem is - once you understand something, it's not that interesting to >>post about it. I usually only post about things I haven't understood yet :) >> >>Vas > >At some point this place changed from "cutting edge chess programming >discussions" to a mix of about 75% testers/settings experimenters and 25% >newbies, with a few of the old guard like Bob around to keep it interesting. >Now, I have no problems with either of those two groups of people, but I haven't >actually learned anything here in the past year or so. If you want to write an >engine rated 2400 SSDF, this place is great, but if you want to write a 2800 >rated engine it is practically worthless. I think that fruit is at least 2600 ssdf The difference between the professional and the amateur is not so big. 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.