Author: Albert Silver
Date: 07:20:03 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 21, 1999 at 23:20:00, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>On December 21, 1999 at 18:48:15, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>
>>On December 21, 1999 at 18:03:10, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>> And they generally
>>>don't propose solutions until they have a pretty clear understanding of the
>>>_problem_.
>>
>>There's your problem -- you think I'm "proposing solutions" when I'm just
>>brainstorming as a means of learning.
>>
>>I've pointed this difference out several times. Maybe someday you'll notice.
>>
>>-- g
>
>
>No.. every time I point out a problem, you respond "that might not be a problem
>with the right design approach."
>
>Not very convincing, IMHO...
>
>I at least understand the problem domain _clearly_. And would be interested
>in seeing you get something going, although I suspect it will be problematic
>to get money to do it. But that aside, the idea is interesting. But the
>problems are significant. Otherwise we would be up to our armpits in these
>things already... when you think about it.
The question begs asking so I'll ask it: If you were to try to build the next
super duper ultra chess machine, and provided costs were not the biggest issue,
how would you go about it? How would you pick up from Deep Blue? I realize this
is completely hypothetical, and that any ideas you had would still need to bear
testing, but the question remains: what would you do?
Albert Silver
This page took 0.01 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.