Author: Steve
Date: 18:17:19 01/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 00:01:30, Dann Corbit wrote: >I think we are all passionate about the chess programs we like. > >Me worse than most, and irrationally so. I seethe when one of my favorites is >beaten. :-( !!! > >Michael Cummings (for instance) is [or seems to be to me anyway] passionate >about Chessmaster, which I think is great. > >All of which is a lot better than a bunch of people who could care less. > >I try to talk about statistics once in a while. Quite frankly, I don't think >anyone gives a hoot about the math. I have seen rational, intelligent people >tell me that they "know" chess program 'A' is much stronger than chess program >'B' after a single game! Not a single tournament, a single G A M E !!! > >Will people ever decide to grade their chess programs on a rational basis? >Using mathematics and logic and deduction? > >For playing strength, they probably should. But for fun? I'm not so sure. And >if we could mathematically prove which one was best (fortunately we *can't*) it >might take all the fun out of drooling over the latest release on zippy new >hardware. Fair enough. But I'm curious as to why anyone who didn't actually write a particular program would feel so invested in its success.
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.