George Duke wrote on Mon, Sep 22, 2008 07:29 PM UTC:
Right. NextChess is discussable from any and all angles. The troika
(Russian word) proposal is just thrashed out at one sitting. It is obvious
enough idea to seek breakaway from pure artwork CVs are now. Rich says
''end up fragmenting,'' but apparently Yasser Seirawan's reaction to
some IAGO idea shows already facade of fragmentation. Hutnik said some of
them wanted nothing to do with some of us; and actually most sides,
including supposed avant garde Variantists, prefer status quo -- like a
cold war with several actors. So much posturing to forestall deep thinking. On GMs' part at ChessBase, they seem to have
stopped talking about computer dominance and matches human-computer. That is another stagnation in ignoring evident science. You are labelled cynical there if suggesting several programs (Rybka, Toga II) are the real world champions. Joe Joyce says ''I
don't believe there is such a thing as the next chess.'' He's right
that it's mostly matter for belief, not to mention selfishness in
preferring pure and rather pointless self-expression out of context. Better attitude includes that there is some measure of responsibility to show chess-savvy outsiders what groups may have enjoyed learning. Incidentally Rich's once saying
particular Falcon(1992) could be adequate for IAGO testing would be
approved.
