Author: Micheal Cummings
Date: 00:05:16 08/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 1999 at 22:58:27, Tina Long wrote: >On August 14, 1999 at 11:21:23, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On August 14, 1999 at 03:29:37, Micheal Cummings wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>Howdy Dad >>> >>>Refering to your article that you wrote, it would be of interest to only a >>>select group of people. Even if you posted it, you might get maybe up to 10 >>>people who would reply. We need gerneral interest articles and reviews of >>>programs and related computer chess book or services. >> >>I agree. But, I think we also need chess programming articles as well. If, as >>you state below, 10% or less of the people here are programmers, then about 10% >>or so of the articles should be on computer chess programming (and that is not >>to say that non-programming readers would not find these type of articles >>interesting). >> >>And, people write articles based on their own interest. So, in my case, if I was >>successful in compressing any position into 20 bytes, then that would be what >>interests me. I would post the paper and if only one person read it, that would >>be enough. >> >>KarinsDad :) >> >>> >>>yours would only get interest from programmers, and chess programers at that. I >>>would say that maybe, I might be wrong that people who write or tinkle in chess >>>program would be under 10% on here. >>> >>>We need articles to get interest of more than at least 60% of people on here. >>>Who knows that is just my hu8mble opinion. > >Hi guys, >Every quarter I wade through the ICCA Journal. >I fully understand about 2%, >I partially understand about 60%, >I find interest in about 95%. >(I even read all 87 pages of Bob's last paper :} ) > >Your short post on 20-byte positions prompted many replys. A article would >probably have invoked more acedemic feedback to you. > >Gees, you can't wait until something's finished before you start publishing. >Work in progress benefits from feedback. > >And if 1% of the 60% majority says "we're not interested in programming, write >something the masses like" then (sentence not completed). > >I wouldn't like to see the articles from ICCA Journal copied to the Computer >Chess reports, as it could mean the demise of ICCA Journal (I for one wouldn't >need to buy it). > >Computer Chess Reports comes down to supply & demand. There doesn't seem to be >many posts in this thread creating demand, and that is no incentive for supply. > >I think that some people are far too critical here, and explanitory articles >often get critical replys, which is also a disincentive to post articles. > >My vote is to keep Computer Chess Reports alive, it can't cost too much if it is >fully inactive, and if there is any activity then maybe it will justify itself. > >I visit there regularly, if there is anything new I decide whether or not to >read it. If there is nothing new I don't say "scrap it", I just surf elsewhere >that day. > >Hi guys, >Tina Long Its not a matter of voting to keep it in, it will stay there, but I see nothing different than from the past three months in which nothing has been added. I do not think that its a matter to keep it or scrap it, Just a matter of if anyone will bother to add to it anymore. And from the looks of it, this is no.
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.