Author: Thorsten Czub
Date: 05:01:17 08/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 1999 at 07:40:06, Ralf Elvsén wrote: >Ok, it was never there... Maybe a more measured way of >writing would prevent people (sorry, just me?) from >getting that false impression, but I guess that is >not your style. thats not my way. in computerchess i am most offen very enthusiastic. it makes me much fun and i like the people and the programs. >I was under the impression that you had a more or less organized >cooperation with Chris W. Granted, such cooperation >can take place without you being interested in the commercial >success of CSTal. If I misunderstood this I sincerely >apologize. I work with chris on his program. but he is not the only programmer i do this or have done this. although, over the years, we have become friends. this is all. no money, no contract, no deals. Whether chris nor me are interested in a commercial success of cstal. he earns money with buying IMO more or less stupid NON-chess-games. computerchess is his and my hobby. and - since he is the boss of a programming-company he forces his company to produce something that is his hobby. IMO he is not a professional in computerchess, but an amateur. because he is not interested much in selling it... >2-0 is not impossible (obviously). 20-0 is not impossible either, >but very improbable (not that you implied such a superiority). >I guess you and I just have different opinions on what conclusions >can be drawn from a few games. Let us continue to stay pleased in >our two parallel universes. Btw, what ARE your conclusions >from these games? the same you have: hiarcs and nimzo have a king-safety problem. >CSTal is clearly better than Hiarcs? Hiarcs have kingside-problems? >Ah, I see below: >"all i want is to show that cstal is able to play good >results against the top programs IF you give it fair conditions". How good that god gave us the capability to read ! >Ok, if that is your claim, I will consider the hypothesis worth >testing, although not yet verified or rejected. I personally >would be glad if the "CSTal-approach" would prove to be succesful >in this respect. It opens up doors for (in my opinion) more >interesting programming questions than the "usual" stuff. >Too bad the programming techniques seem to be so secret (?) ?? I don't think so. chris has tried several times to discuss his methods. but he resigned doing it because the bean-counter-protagonists have made him depressive with their NON-understanding of (computer)chess. Most often they spoke about numbers/statistics and results meanwhile he talked about chess. >I think I understand your metaphor, although I consider it >to be slightly insulting :) Eating fast food is a part of american culture. If you believe US-culture is insulting than indeed you have a problem. IMO having a different culture concerning food is not insulting. And - in the same way, having a different paradigm in computerchess is not insulting. You need 20 games or more to believe. I need 2 games or even less to get my information. The one believes in numbers (results like 20-0; 13-7;) the other in what he sees during the game on the screen. You do COMPUTERchess. I do computerCHESS. >Ok, I think I know better where you stand now. Thanks for your answer ok - it was not my intention to insult you. If you have seen some of my sentences this way, i want to apologize. Thank you.
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.