On Wed, 7 May 2008 17:41:43 -0700 (PDT), help bot
<nomorechess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 7, 8:03 pm, Patrick Volk <pjv...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> All the while, the main content of the r.g.c newsgroup has dwindled
>> under the Sanny spam. Still trying to brute force it (in Java no
>> less).
>
> This last part is ludicrous; there is no easy way to
>pinpoint the exact cause of any alleged dwindling of
>rgc, let alone determine that Sanny should get all
>the credit for it. In addition, there are, at the same
>time, other such "spammers" who have bombarded
>the chess newsgroups with advertisements for their
>products; for instance, Larry Parr has been "over-
>promoting" a recent book by Larry Evans for quite
>some time; and Ray Gordon never stops with his
>self-promo add-ons.
But the lack Sanny's persistence, and consistency of message. He's
always fixed a bug, and now it's always 'much improved'.
>
> In addition, the fact is that /one of the reasons/
>that Sanny has made less than amazing progress
>is that nobody with any expertise has bothered to
>help him much.
I know if I were to undertake a chess engine, I wouldn't start with
usenet... I'd start at the library or bookstore. There's thousands of
pages on computer chess. That's not the fault of the group.
> A few folks have tossed out some
>technical talk, but they have yet to explain the ins
>and outs of programming a strong chess engine
>here in rgc.
Again, that's not the fault of the group. Usenet isn't really good for
depth... would you write a thesis based on usenet research? But, to
get into the details of position scoring, lookahead, alpha-beta
pruning, and probably one of the more difficult aspects, knowing where
to adjust for difficulty would be incredibly difficult.
Any one of those subjects can get pretty complicated, and to use a
question-response mechanism to extract information is going to likely
be futile. Consdiering Sanny's domain expertise on the subject as well
(as in not knowing how to properly do a draw) makes it extremely
futile.
It is also a question of the tools at hand. Sanny as a self-promoter
is on par with Ray Gordon, just nowhere near as angry.
> Sure, Sanny could find that information
>elsewhere, but if people have the time and energy
>to discuss, say, Barry Goldwater, and what the
>world might look like if Adolf Hitler had worn a pink
>tutu, or whether or not Thomas Jefferson had any
>slave-children, then how awful can it be for Sanny
>to ask for help here, in a chess newsgroup?
If any of those subjects persisted over at least a year, I'd say
there'd be nothing left of the dead horse to beat, which is my point.
Let's not forget Sanny isn't doing this for the sake of chess, he'd
doing it for making money. Nothing wrong with that, but the babe in
the woods routine isn't the right manner.
>
> Face it: chess is a complicated game, and even
>the rules governing its play are far from simple. It
>should therefore come as no surprise when a
>newbie has difficulties in writing the world's soon-
>to-be strongest chess program... . ;>D
Maybe he should start with tic-tac-toe, nim, then working his way up
to checkers. Probably a good test for his chess engine would be the
Atari 2600 chess game at expert (4-6 hours per move). A note, the 2600
only allows like 2K of ROM (16K max maybe), and had like 256 bytes of
RAM.
And if he tested against programs like that, he wouldn't be here daily
saying how he improved his program. Don't know who he's kidding with
his 'staff', as well, aside from maybe you Help bot ;)
>
>
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
