Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:26:30 08/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 23, 2005 at 06:06:11, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On August 22, 2005 at 21:29:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>No, otherwise you would never see such strong programs show up with less than a year's effort behind them... > > >That is a topic I'm interested in for years now. I think RUFFIAN is a good >example. Tell me if I'm wrong but for me it's clear that programming students >but also older people have something in their mind that cries for bombastic and >sensational appearance. Science is totally different. Just take the manuscripts >of Einstein's early theories. > >I also see a social aspect. A chessprogram needs at least a couple of people who >test it and who want to use it. Here we have a group of people with highest >suggestibility. In the amateur scene you can feel that at the instant. These >people wait for the smashing puncher who then kills all the highest ranked >commercial programs just like the religious believers who wait for the end of >the World. This again has a destructive ingrediant. Combined with wishful >thinking the test results soon prove the superiority of the new engines. In a >tournament somewhere the heroe wins my big margins. Sorry, I'm a lay but I am >certain that this is all a fata morgana because this program is still so new for >the rest of the participants. Months later the program dissapears - like >RUFFIAN. - But - not so long afterwards we see FRUIT or ZAPPA. I know for sure >that ZAPPA won't win in the next WCCC when SMK is well prepared again. How do you know? 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.