PaulieD wrote:If Stockfish 6 will not be present the "Championships" will be meaningless.
Komodo might show up to, to complete the work of the sekretariat. If that happens the organisation should play the GUNDA-1 card with SF6 and get some kind of competition.
It is not far from my house, yet I will not enter or watch. Personally I favor the TCEC format to decide on world championship.
After they have pathetically changed the link of their site http://komodochess.com/ to point to the only rating list in which Komodo is still #1 (because SF 6 still has not been tested there!) I expect anything out of them, even that Komodo participates icga and gives up TCEC (like Hiarcs did).
I have respect for Komodo people, but I starting to see they are steering to desperate (and, sorry to say, quite pity) actions. They are commercial, they need to get money out of this Komodo thing, I understand this, nevertheless....
Tell you what. From someone that has been involved in this activity since 1968, the most pathetic actions I see here are by you guys. Never seen such egos, such lack of respect for others that are working hard, etc.
In short, as emissaries for computer chess, you guys suck BIG TIME. Hopefully most won't think that all computer chess people act like you guys...
PaulieD wrote:If Stockfish 6 will not be present the "Championships" will be meaningless.
Komodo might show up to, to complete the work of the sekretariat. If that happens the organisation should play the GUNDA-1 card with SF6 and get some kind of competition.
It is not far from my house, yet I will not enter or watch. Personally I favor the TCEC format to decide on world championship.
After they have pathetically changed the link of their site http://komodochess.com/ to point to the only rating list in which Komodo is still #1 (because SF 6 still has not been tested there!) I expect anything out of them, even that Komodo participates icga and gives up TCEC (like Hiarcs did).
I have respect for Komodo people, but I starting to see they are steering to desperate (and, sorry to say, quite pity) actions. They are commercial, they need to get money out of this Komodo thing, I understand this, nevertheless....
Tell you what. From someone that has been involved in this activity since 1968, the most pathetic actions I see here are by you guys. Never seen such egos, such lack of respect for others that are working hard, etc.
In short, as emissaries for computer chess, you guys suck BIG TIME. Hopefully most won't think that all computer chess people act like you guys...
I have no issues whatsoever with you. I simply detest the use of insults as a means of conversation. So whenever this happens I draw attention to it. You are simply one of the worst offenders on this front.
P.S: Even your signature sentence
Code:
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.
reveals that you are many centuries behind and a real cleric. You have still an Aristotelian vision of the world although it is at least 5 centuries that is accepted that science = experiment = measure. Five centuries ago someone said "science is the daughter of experience" and was almost imprisoned for this....after 5 centuries clerics are still among us, with the whips in their hands. Indeed still today many people (including academics) have only a superficial understanding of what science is, and once you dig a little bit deeper beyond their mechanical parroting of what they have read in books, you understand that they still do not grasp the deep concepts above which modern world was built. This makes me further realize what big achievement did the fathers of our modern science when they pushed to introduce, at risk of their lives, the new concept of science to people that was even not able to parroting, because what they were saying at the time was not written in any book.
You are obviously confusing things here. My signature is a tautology. You cannot simplify something that isn't there.
As to your rambling diatribe. It is clear that you have no idea whatsoever about how science works. You clearly believe that science should be done by an army of monkeys doing random experiments in the hope that something good will come out of it. If that were true we would still be in the stone age
No the scientific method consists of
Theory->Prediction->Experiment->Refine theory
and repeat.
The nice thing is that this process often converges so that the theory offers better and better predictions about reality.
In order to make more informed posts in the future you could start reading here
The only problem I have with your characterization of the scientific method is that you are not explicitly acknowledging the importance of observation in the formulation of hypotheses.
bob wrote:Tell you what. From someone that has been involved in this activity since 1968, the most pathetic actions I see here are by you guys. Never seen such egos, such lack of respect for others that are working hard, etc.
In short, as emissaries for computer chess, you guys suck BIG TIME. Hopefully most won't think that all computer chess people act like you guys...
They've improved their engine more in four years than what you've manged with yours in two decades (not to mention that for the level of improvement of your engine that you've spent two decades would take a semi-decent programmer not more than 2-3 years coz improving an engine 500 Elo below the top is like an order of magnitude easier than improving the top engine).
You telling them something is like a guy from a local hardware store telling Intel how to run business.
So much about ego.
Michel wrote: Theory->Prediction->Experiment->Refine theory
There is no theory before experiment in real world (physics, astronomy, biology, anything that you can pick), apart from very rare cases theoreticians always follows experimenters, the latter find something strange and unusual (many times by chance) and the firsts build or refine a theory out of it. Has always been like this and is still today like this, I could report hundreds of cases.
I'm happy we live in 21 century, I would have been scared to find someone like you at medieval ages: I would have been probably put on flames.
You are mischaracterizing Michel. You write as if he believes that theories are self-evident facts that do not have to be supported by experiment, while he has stated the importance of experiment for the examination and refinement of theory.
Milos wrote:not to mention that for the level of improvement of your engine that you've spent two decades would take a semi-decent programmer not more than 2-3 years
A bold statement from someone whose biggest achievement was to attach GPL to Robbolito
bob wrote:Tell you what. From someone that has been involved in this activity since 1968, the most pathetic actions I see here are by you guys. Never seen such egos, such lack of respect for others that are working hard, etc.
In short, as emissaries for computer chess, you guys suck BIG TIME. Hopefully most won't think that all computer chess people act like you guys...
They've improved their engine more in four years than what you've manged with yours in two decades (not to mention that for the level of improvement of your engine that you've spent two decades would take a semi-decent programmer not more than 2-3 years coz improving an engine 500 Elo below the top is like an order of magnitude easier than improving the top engine).
You telling them something is like a guy from a local hardware store telling Intel how to run business.
So much about ego.
I don't understand the logic in responding to A (EGO) with B (ELO).
bob wrote:Tell you what. From someone that has been involved in this activity since 1968, the most pathetic actions I see here are by you guys. Never seen such egos, such lack of respect for others that are working hard, etc.
In short, as emissaries for computer chess, you guys suck BIG TIME. Hopefully most won't think that all computer chess people act like you guys...
They've improved their engine more in four years than what you've manged with yours in two decades (not to mention that for the level of improvement of your engine that you've spent two decades would take a semi-decent programmer not more than 2-3 years coz improving an engine 500 Elo below the top is like an order of magnitude easier than improving the top engine).
You telling them something is like a guy from a local hardware store telling Intel how to run business.
So much about ego.
bob wrote:Tell you what. From someone that has been involved in this activity since 1968, the most pathetic actions I see here are by you guys. Never seen such egos, such lack of respect for others that are working hard, etc.
In short, as emissaries for computer chess, you guys suck BIG TIME. Hopefully most won't think that all computer chess people act like you guys...
They've improved their engine more in four years than what you've manged with yours in two decades (not to mention that for the level of improvement of your engine that you've spent two decades would take a semi-decent programmer not more than 2-3 years coz improving an engine 500 Elo below the top is like an order of magnitude easier than improving the top engine).
You telling them something is like a guy from a local hardware store telling Intel how to run business.
So much about ego.
Crafty was an important part of chess programming. This guy is a professor, see his article on Wikipedia and CP wiki. He discovered Rotated Bitboards, Dynamic Tree Splitting and much, much more I've missed. It's more like the architect of Intel 8080 telling a supercomputer maker this.
