hgm wrote:Well, the statement does not even claim it was Fischer-specific Chess knowledge.
syzygy wrote:If I have learned how to play chess by reading Max Euwe's books, do I possess (first-hand? second-hand?) knowledge from Euwe? Sure, why not.
As I said, the statement is essentially meaningless as regards the qualities of Rybka's evaluation function.
Alexander Schmidt wrote:Most customers of chess software are not such talented and keen-witted programmers like you. And most customers will conclude that an engine with "second-hand Chess knowledge from Fischer in the evaluation" will play like Fischer or at least "human". Publishing such comments is called marketing.
So most customers are stupid, and a fool and his money are soon parted. That doesn't make it wrong to say things they will misunderstand, or make it right for them (or us) to misunderstand such things.
As Canada Bill used to say:
It's morally wrong to allow suckers to keep their money.
I don't think in this case the customers have much right to complain, though: the engine in fact plays much stronger than Fischer.
Just stop your dumb assumptions. I didn't say customers are stupid, and I din't say they have the right to complain.
No, last time we tried that one of you guys tried to touch my booty! Homie Don't Play That! I Don't Think So.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers