Author: James Robertson
Date: 10:13:30 06/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 13, 1999 at 13:10:45, James Robertson wrote: I guess one should remember that these quotes are taken out of context; they make a lot more sense with the rest of the email. :) I didn't realise how badly I conveyed the wrong emotion with my post. Perhaps if you read the rest of the thread following my post "Misunderstanding" below, my motives for the post would be more clear? I did not intend to sound ungrateful for all the wonderful help these people have given me! James >On June 13, 1999 at 11:38:09, Charles L. Williams wrote: > >>On June 12, 1999 at 14:33:42, James Robertson wrote: >> >>>These are some of the distressing things testers have said about my program. >>>Does anybody else recieve emails with stuff like this in them? >>> >>>James >>> >>> >>>"... that is great to analyze mistakes and other mystical things with JRCP." >>> >>>"Sometimes JRCP neglects the evolution of it's chessmen." >>> >>>"I can't believe my eyes [Rhg1??]. This is remembering the early days of >>>computer chess." >>> >>>"There is certainly something wrong with King safety." >>> >>>"JRCP draws with LambChop. After analyzing the game, I saw JRCP gives stalemate >>>in a total lost position. This is certainly a strange way to get a 1/2 point." >>> >>>"All other programs were playing Qxd8. YOUR program plays Kxd8, somewhat >>>unexpectedly." >>> >>>"It seems JRCP does not know about King safety." >>> >>>"Today I have prepared a testsuite from blunder-games of JRCP." >>> >>>"> Big bug in King safety fixed. >>> >>>Is it?" >> >> >>Some of these are useful, some useless, some written by jerks. The problem is >>trying to sort it all out. >> >> >>Chuck > >They are _all_ useful. :) > >James
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.