Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:30:16 12/21/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1999 at 22:27:09, Will Singleton wrote:
>On December 21, 1999 at 19:05:13, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On December 21, 1999 at 18:55:50, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>>>On December 21, 1999 at 18:01:42, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Instead, you state the fact like
>>>>gospel and just assume it solves everything.
>>>
>>>Stop right there -- I didn't assume anything. You assumed. Again, this is the
>>>same communications problem I've pointed out repeatedly.
>>There was a guy I read about in the paper. He married more than one hundred
>>different women. Imagine that! I started thinking to myself. Now, if that was
>>me, I might imagine that I had caught ahold of a bad woman or two. But by the
>>time I got into the 90's, I would probably have thought -- "Hey, maybe it's not
>>always *them* maybe it's *me*!"
>>
>>>> How about you just try to learn from the
>>>>experts here? Maybe after you understand some of the problems, you can begin to
>>>>help solve them.
>>>
>>>I am trying to learn from the experts.
>>>
>>>Maybe some century you'll notice.
>>
>>You are talking to one of them (TK). Tom has entered (and done well) in
>>computer chess world championships with his chess program Stobor. Dr. Hyatt,
>>whom you seem to struggle with in other branches of this thread is another.
>>Robert Hyatt wrote the program Cray Blitz, which was a world champion program.
>>He is also the author of Crafty, which is the strongest ameteur open-source
>>program in the world. I'm just mentioning that because there are not a lot of
>>great ameteur programmers around who will be willing to donate their time to
>>your little project. Now, I think that just possibly you're not going about
>>this the right way. If I was searching for top experts to help me, I think I
>>might just try to be nice to them and listen quietly. I doubt very much if I
>>should tell them that they don't know what they are talking about.
>>
>>>In the meantime, you can stop calling people names, putting words in their
>>>mouths, and making assumptions.
>>pot
>>kettle
>>black
>>[IMO-YMMV]
>>{SEE! I told everyone I would be a crappy moderator.}
>
>Dann, you know I appreciate all your work with the CAP project, as well as all
>your other efforts. Tom, you have a special place in this group with TSCP, not
>even counting your other contributions. Bob, everyone acknowledges your
>expertise and your long service in the computer chess field. And Amir, as well
>as others who have participated in this thread with Greg, your standing here is
>known.
>
>I would just say that, from my pov, there have been certain parties throwing
>invective, making deprecating comments, and acting in a defensive manner. It
>isn't Greg. I have been a bit disturbed to see this going on. This is
>certainly not in the spirit of comradeship and discovery.
>
>Why do we act defensive? Perhaps his initial post could have been worded
>slightly better, but considering the usual drivel that passes muster, his was
>one that represented an opportunity for real discussion and learning. I was
>looking forward to it, but it instead degenerated into name-calling and
>miscommunication. I don't think Greg was to blame for that.
>
>Reading back over the entire thread, I really believe the fault here is with us,
>not Greg. Let's all be a bit more tolerant of new members. Perhaps Greg will
>surprise us all, and become a bona-fide chess developer. I believe that we
>should encourage that, in Greg and other new members.
>
>Will
I don't see where "we" have been harsh. When I first talked to Bruce about
parallel searching, I told him about a few problem issues that had to be
handled. When anyone asks a question, I try to _first_ cover the problems.
Because in the past, _everyone_ reports their successes. _nobody_ reports
their failures. This is an important point I try to instill in my PhD
students here. Don't write up successes and toss out failures. Write them
up too. In fact, the failures are probably more important than the successes,
because _those_ represent things that anyone would probably try when tackling
the same problem.
It is the reason I can debug most student programs without even looking at them.
I get that query over and over in my TCP/IP networking class... "How in the
world could you know I did _that_?" "without looking at my program?" I respond
"maybe because I have seen it 100 times in the past?" :)
I _always_ want to know about the problems first. Not everyone feels the
same, it seems. When I work with someone, I don't want a "yes man" I want
someone that will point out issues and problems as early in the development
cycle as possible, so that they can be either solved, or the project can be
scrapped before too much time/money has been wasted.
In the case of chess and hardware, I am familiar with both. I have designed
and built hardware in the past. I have been writing chess programs forever.
And I have had many conversations with chess hardware builders. Not using all
of that knowledge would be poor on my part... ie 'reinventing the wheel' or
allowing it to be reinvented doesn't make a lot of sense if all of the missteps
and problems can be sidestepped early...
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.