CCC Crisis?

[fern]

A thread as "CCC crisis?" that produces so a long thread has in itself the answer.

Logician regards
Dernando

[dj]

A thread as "CCC crisis?" that produces so a long thread has in itself the answer.

Logician regards
Dernando

Remember, Fernando, I made that point twice in the thread - though it is true I was concentrating on the quality of the posts rather than the length of the thread.
dj

[Daniel Mehrmann]

A thread as "CCC crisis?" that produces so a long thread has in itself the answer.

Logician regards
Dernando

Remember, Fernando, I made that point twice in the thread - though it is true I was concentrating on the quality of the posts rather than the length of the thread.
dj

Fully agree and a big problem of CCC. A lot of threads/postings having a low or very low quality.

Best,
Daniel

[fern]

Well, Derek, we must concede that in a chaotic world it is possible that even us could agree from time to time.
BTW, I have not read even one post, I just counted the number of them, yes...
I considered that enough a show of health....
My best
Fernando

[dj]

Well, Derek, we must concede that in a chaotic world it is possible that even us could agree from time to time.
BTW, I have not read even one post, I just counted the number of them, yes...
I considered that enough a show of health....
My best
Fernando

As you can see from my avatar your post has made me smile.

[BBauer]

Fernano wrote

BTW, I have not read even one post, I just counted the number of them, yes...
I considered that enough a show of health....
My best
Fernando

Such long threads are terrible.
I would suggest that the moderators delete some massages randomly.
20 messages are enough for a thread.
That way the moderators can keep up their good work.

Bernhard

[mclane]

there is no computerchess crisis.

fact is that computerchess is more interesting than it was in older years.

hardware is more attractive, software is more attractive.


what has to change are the ways the companies operate. those who do NOT change will die.

no wonder novag, saitek, h+g, fidelity died.
they did not want to change themselves.

chessbase is on the same track. they do not have attractive engines to sell anymore. most freeware engines are stronger. people do not want the same buggy GUIs again. freeware GUIs are more attractive and even more bugfree than those commercial products.

no - the market has to change.

if it will not change, there is the risk to die out.

you cannot sell dedicated chess computer with 10 or 20 mhz in times where any mobile is running with 100 or 200 or more Mhz.

[dj]

there is no computerchess crisis.

fact is that computerchess is more interesting than it was in older years.

hardware is more attractive, software is more attractive.


what has to change are the ways the companies operate. those who do NOT change will die.

no wonder novag, saitek, h+g, fidelity died.
they did not want to change themselves.

chessbase is on the same track. they do not have attractive engines to sell anymore. most freeware engines are stronger. people do not want the same buggy GUIs again. freeware GUIs are more attractive and even more bugfree than those commercial products.

no - the market has to change.

if it will not change, there is the risk to die out.

you cannot sell dedicated chess computer with 10 or 20 mhz in times where any mobile is running with 100 or 200 or more Mhz.

Hi Thorsten,

There are two quite separate issues:
1. Is there a decline in interest in computer chess?
2. Is there a crisis in CCC?

It seems to me that the latter, which has been the subject of recent discussion here, is undeniable. The former is more open to debate but I happen to believe it to be true. At the summit there remain the hard-core enthusiasts but many others lower down the slopes seem to be losing interest. It is certainly true in my case. I came to computer chess as a chessplayer. For many years I bought all the latest software, collected engines, followed the tournaments and the websites, etc. Then programs were suddenly able to defeat even strong GMs and it became obvious that they were able to to do so not because the programs were able to play chess as I understood it but in spite of the fact they could not do so. And, of course, once engines surpassed GMs interest in them declined in some quarters because it seemed they had achieved their purpose, and not everybody was interested in whether among programs that could all defeat GMs one was 20, 50 or even 100 rating points higher than another. This is in spite of Rybka, which is owned and used by a very tiny number of people relative to Chessmaster and Fritz.

What we need is a game and computer programs starting from a much lower level of programming expertise than exists in computer chess. The obvious game is go. It is not only superior to chess but also a much greater challenge for those interested in AI. It is not amenable to the brute force method that has proved successful in chess. Unfortunately though computer go may be the way to go in the future its time has not yet come.

Regards,
Derek

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

there is no computerchess crisis.

fact is that computerchess is more interesting than it was in older years.

hardware is more attractive, software is more attractive.


what has to change are the ways the companies operate. those who do NOT change will die.

no wonder novag, saitek, h+g, fidelity died.
they did not want to change themselves.

chessbase is on the same track. they do not have attractive engines to sell anymore. most freeware engines are stronger. people do not want the same buggy GUIs again. freeware GUIs are more attractive and even more bugfree than those commercial products.

no - the market has to change.

if it will not change, there is the risk to die out.

you cannot sell dedicated chess computer with 10 or 20 mhz in times where any mobile is running with 100 or 200 or more Mhz.

Hi Thorsten,

There are two quite separate issues:
1. Is there a decline in interest in computer chess?
2. Is there a crisis in CCC?

It seems to me that the latter, which has been the subject of recent discussion here, is undeniable. The former is more open to debate but I happen to believe it to be true. At the summit there remain the hard-core enthusiasts but many others lower down the slopes seem to be losing interest. It is certainly true in my case. I came to computer chess as a chessplayer. For many years I bought all the latest software, collected engines, followed the tournaments and the websites, etc. Then programs were suddenly able to defeat even strong GMs and it became obvious that they were able to to do so not because the programs were able to play chess as I understood it but in spite of the fact they could not do so. And, of course, once engines surpassed GMs interest in them declined in some quarters because it seemed they had achieved their purpose, and not everybody was interested in whether among programs that could all defeat GMs one was 20, 50 or even 100 rating points higher than another. This is in spite of Rybka, which is owned and used by a very tiny number of people relative to Chessmaster and Fritz.

What we need is a game and computer programs starting from a much lower level of programming expertise than exists in computer chess. The obvious game is go. It is not only superior to chess but also a much greater challenge for those interested in AI. It is not amenable to the brute force method that has proved successful in chess. Unfortunately though computer go may be the way to go in the future its time has not yet come.

Regards,
Derek

The game Go is in no way superior to the chess game

[mclane]

what we need IMO are more cleveral chess programs.

everybody is only looking at the ELO rating.
in some elo lists.

but nobody seems to be interested with how stupid moves those
ratings were made.

still the machines do not play chess. they emulate it.

more and more chess programs show us that they can beat any opponent
although they do not understand the simple chess positions.

even with a lack of the most simple endgame rules, they win.

IMO this is a problem.
it reminds me on cars who could not drive arround a corner
withour ESP.

in earlier times cars were constructed the way they could drive in a corner without any electrical and computer help.

today some cars could not do that !

similar it is with some chess programs.