Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 02:49:01 07/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On July 25, 2005 at 03:47:06, Uri Blass wrote: >The fact are that it is very easy to make improvement if you are a good >programmer(see Fabien programmer of Fruit when inspite of the fact that Fruit >has bugs it is number 2 or number 3 in the world and I feel sure that it will be >better than Shredder9 if Fabien only fix some search bugs) do you think Richard Lang could have won 10 times the title without beeing a good programmer ? Its IMO more complex then GOOD or BAD. Richard had something in his programs no other chess program had, so it was difficult for the other chess programs to handle genius/Lang-programs. When nullmove was "invented", or lets better say: used in common, this trick of Richard to get deeper did not work anymore as effective as it did the 10 championships before. >There are 2 possibilities: >1)The programmers of the commercial programs do not work hard enough >2)The programmers of the commercial programs are clearly inferior programmers >relative to Fabien this sounds too much aristotelic to me. Life is not that easy and especially not as easy as y=a*(b+c) would suggest it is. you cannot really explain what is going on in real life by creating sentences following aristotelic logic. >I believe that 2 is correct(it is also possible that 1 is correct or both are >correct) > >Uri your logic is inaccurate. that is the problem IMO.
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.