Author: Tina Long
Date: 01:18:07 08/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 1999 at 03:05:16, Micheal Cummings wrote: >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 you said "Change it or get rid of it." >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.