Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 13:16:42 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 2000 at 21:17:19, Steve wrote: >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. I certainly hope you aren't looking for a logical reason. I mean, why do we cheer for our favorite athlete? We did not engage in any training, and if they win or lose our lives are unaffected. We feel passionately attached because we want to. Because we enjoy it.
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.