Author: Tom Kerrigan
Date: 11:27:02 01/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 23, 2000 at 14:09:10, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >If you can't make your arguments without resorting to this kind of stuff, >perhaps you should rethink your argument. If you really think you're right, you >should simply argue your point clearly, and supply some sort of data to back it >up. IMO, you aren't doing it. Life doesn't always work this way. You can make the clearest argument in the world and still not "win." The person you are arguing with can ignore your points, confuse the issue, change the topic, etc. Here's my original question, which started this whole argument: if FHH knows how to make such a terrific evaluation function, why doesn't he put one in a PC program and make a lot of money from it? You can see that this is the original question by looking at post 90521. Since then, Hyatt has brought up a lot of extra crap about circuitry simulation and the complexity of DB's evaluation function, but everything he's said is either wrong or off-topic... >All I've seen from you so far in this thread is some claims that Hsu could >easily port DB's program to PC software, based on an estimate of the number of >CPU instructions it might take. This number was guessed by Hsu, and you seem to >be taking it on faith. However, you don't seem to believe _anything_ else Hsu >has said. Why believe one, and not any other? What has Hsu said that I don't believe? I can't think of anything. I have a lot of respect for Hsu. I have nearly zero respect for Hyatt, especially after trying to argue with him. -Tom
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.