Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:41:13 05/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2002 at 16:48:49, Albert Silver wrote: >I think it is equally easy to argue that hashtables are nothing more than >written notes that the program writes and then consults. Afterall, the fact that >it is stored/written into memory should make no difference, otherwise I could >simply load the opening book into the RAM. I know that I am not allowed to write >down my own analysis during a game to consult while I am playing. I think it is >therefore also time to ban hashtables. Adios Fritz! > > Albert Why such excitement? The intention behind the topic was the hope to find solutions so that computerchess could be in human tournaments. Your sole argument sounds "please stop asking questions about books, it becomes even worse and worse and organizers might never accept us...". If that is your thought why can't you just begin a easy-going debate about defining what the program should have. Or are you supporting the idea, no matter what we are doing it doesn't matter that we are out of it. So let's continue business as usual. Is it that what you want. If that is the opinion of a majority then we really could stop discussing. It would be sad however. The FIDE still didn't define "computer", so why computerchess started to work for it. That was my sole intention. Rolf Tueschen
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.