Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 15:23:01 08/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
Now we are in a really fine debate, thank you so much. I could understand you very well. Thanks for all your personal details. Now let's try to get a bit deeper. BTW this is how I liked all debates should progress. People often confuse single message as final statements when in truth they are just steps to a deeper understanding waiting on the other ones making their critics or proposals. My English is so limited that the intention is always misunderstood. Here you thought I could really have meant to nag you with your lack of big results but I on the other hand wanted to know the real reasons for the apparent contradiction. If you've implemented all the known features and tricks, why should that be still insufficient to give you a strong program? Is it really the way you are writing, the little bugs or such things? But let me also give you a real science question and I am thankful that you are talking with me. I understood your arguments from a non-technical side. Now the important question: are you seriously implying that in computerchess there is no room for always NEW inventions say like the famous Nullmove implementation? I ask that because I read you as if all the stuff implementated you had no big chance to invent a wheel-like new feature. Why is it so? Why should it be this way? Are you sure it is as you assumed? I for one come really from the outside. I wonder why you and all your collegues are so boring and fixed on the hardware stuff while the inventions of new features seem to be a waste of time. Is it so? Yes, I am very naive on this topic of cloning because I don't even know how to program. But could you perhaps become familiar with my idea that programming creations should contain more original stuff than only copies and a little fine tuning in style? If you can't create new features which then constitute a new period or paradigma why do you participate at all in this race? Always copying all the older stuff? In that meaning Peter is correct with his guess that in my eyes certainly 80% of the ranking he gave in the other posting are just boring clones. How boring! But what could happen if all these 200 programmers from all over the World would combine their efforts and concentrate on the invention of new "features", further basic stuff for computerchess, just what Bob Hyatt was trying to describe. Would you please be so kind and give us your thoughts about my ideas and questions? Do you understand your job a bit from such a science perspective - aside from pure sports? Hopeful regards to Norway, Rolf
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.