WCCC 2011 - Junior is the 2011 World Champion

[Don]

No quotes from me?

as you know...searching this forum is a tedious exercise.
i stopped after searching the 3 above, easily obtaining ample results, and fairly quickly realized i had a veritable 'smorgasbord' of examples using Bob alone.

that being said, i do admit,
searching your posts (and Graham as well) would most certainly present a bevy of crude responses...

and it might be very interesting to compare your 'style' of disrespecting those you don't agree with against the 3 authors mentioned above.

very sad...this unfortunate behavior has clearly become the de-facto standard here (the CCC),
program authors simply 'shit' on each other (and other programs) in a pitiful and vain attempt to garner recognition for themselves and their own programs.

I agree it's a problem, but isn't it always the case that those who complain the loudest often are the worst offenders? We have all done this including you, but suddenly you feel that you are qualified to rebuke us for our bad behavior as if you are poster child for warmth, compassion and respect.

[kranium]

No quotes from me?

as you know...searching this forum is a tedious exercise.
i stopped after searching the 3 above, easily obtaining ample results, and fairly quickly realized i had a veritable 'smorgasbord' of examples using Bob alone.

that being said, i do admit,
searching your posts (and Graham as well) would most certainly present a bevy of crude responses...

and it might be very interesting to compare your 'style' of disrespecting those you don't agree with against the 3 authors mentioned above.

very sad...this unfortunate behavior has clearly become the de-facto standard here (the CCC),
program authors simply 'shit' on each other (and other programs) in a pitiful and vain attempt to garner recognition for themselves and their own programs.

I agree it's a problem, but isn't it always the case that those who complain the loudest often are the worst offenders? We have all done this including you, but suddenly you feel that you are qualified to rebuke us for our bad behavior as if you are poster child for warmth, compassion and respect.

saying 'yeah, but he does it too'...doesn't excuse, or does it?
sad to see you feel your only recourse is a personal attack.

Don, unfortunately, whether it's me or someone else that points it out...
it is what it is.

[Rein Halbersma]

Doping is NOT "harmful to your health". Generally means an excess of red blood cells, which would occur naturally if you trained at high altitude for an extended period of time. If you mean HGH and/or steroids, they are certainly bad, but I have not seen those called "doping" in the past...

In the future, you might want to do some research before making false statements such as that (blood) doping is simply accelerating the natural effects of high altitude training, whereas in fact it can be extremely dangerous...

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/epo.html

Furthermore, both HGH and steroids are commonly accepted examples of doping

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_per ... s_in_sport

[kranium]

Actually this guy gives me an inferiority complex!

get your program up the level of Crafty, Stockfish, and/or Komodo, and next time (i promise), i will certainly include you in my search for disrespectful author quotes.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Actually this guy gives me an inferiority complex!

get your program up the level of Crafty, Stockfish, and/or Komodo, and next time (i promise), i will certainly include you in my search for disrespectful author quotes.

[Don]

No quotes from me?

as you know...searching this forum is a tedious exercise.
i stopped after searching the 3 above, easily obtaining ample results, and fairly quickly realized i had a veritable 'smorgasbord' of examples using Bob alone.

that being said, i do admit,
searching your posts (and Graham as well) would most certainly present a bevy of crude responses...

and it might be very interesting to compare your 'style' of disrespecting those you don't agree with against the 3 authors mentioned above.

very sad...this unfortunate behavior has clearly become the de-facto standard here (the CCC),
program authors simply 'shit' on each other (and other programs) in a pitiful and vain attempt to garner recognition for themselves and their own programs.

I agree it's a problem, but isn't it always the case that those who complain the loudest often are the worst offenders? We have all done this including you, but suddenly you feel that you are qualified to rebuke us for our bad behavior as if you are poster child for warmth, compassion and respect.

saying 'yeah, but he does it too'...doesn't excuse, or does it?
sad to see you recourse is an attack...

unfortunately, whether it's me or someone else that points it out...
it is what it is.

Ok, you are right. I will tone down my attacks. Thank you for correcting me on this.

[hgm]

Actually this guy gives me an inferiority complex!

get your program up the level of Crafty, Stockfish, and/or Komodo, and next time (i promise), i will certainly include you in my search for disrespectful author quotes.

But it is already an order of magnitude above their level, in terms of Elo / character... And Fairy-Max beats all of them 14-2 anyway!
(Except perhaps Komodo; that could be 13-3.)

[FWCC]

Most assuredly Junior IS NOT the strongest Non-Human chess playing entity on the planet.There should be a UNIVERSAL Tour arranged where everything plays.


FWCC

[fern]

In fact, if you allow me to say it and give me some credit, I am the one that has maintained here a decent coat of good manners. I have been treated of almost everything, only excluding to be a serial killer, but I do not say much about it. I read, I enjoy well made sentences, I smile and I answer to practice my precarious English.

But in fact I do not deserve not even that humble piece of credit because of the scanty importance I give to this place and his sayings. For me it is just like a children room so these days I do not come here but for my sense of duty as a moderator, because I must see what's going on.

People becomes children when they lose every sense of perspective and proportion. So a day comes when a battle about -of all things- chess engines becomes something as serious as the current discussion to avoid European Zone failure.

Of course I do not produce chess engines, that facilitates my detachment, but Not even to be author of those piece of software gives extra load to enlarge out of proportion this affair, ANY affair: I am writer and I do not give much importance at what I do, what they say, how much the take from me. As a 4 times best seller I have seen several times my books pirated and sold in front of my nose, in the street, like happens in china con Microsoft stuff. I only consider a serious matter anything associated to my daughters. It is a good recipe to keep you sane.
The rest can go to hell.

my best
Fern

[marcelk]

We explicitly voted to allow nalimov EGTB code. It is the sort of code where for any input, there is exactly one output, no variability whatsoever. Most of a chess engine does NOT fit in that category. Certainly nothing to do with search or evaluation..

As I understand this rationalization is your contribution. Historically it would be nice to understand if it was expressed that way during that first player's meeting? I looked through the rules and I can't find this written in the ICGA rules or journals discussing the rules. Maybe I looked in the wrong place. Either way, those player meeting rules are not written in stone either: It is possible that a current player thinks different from a past player. Some go as far suggesting the past player's opinion is irrelevant. I wouldn't take it that far myself if I were a player.

The historian looking back might be tempted to conclude "The Nalimovs got allowed because everybody had them included already when the issue was brought up, everybody was excited about them and it was way too much work to rewrite it all by themselves (imagine getting that nasty en-passant rule right in retrograde analyses, or compressing while still allowing reasonable random access), so they conveniently excused themselves because Nalimov didn't seem to object either".

He might also think "That one-input one-output because-it-is-neutral is a kind of a weird justification because why then did everyone at more or less the same moment stopped using Ken's databases and started using the Nalimovs, which are functionally entirely equivalent. Maybe because Ken's CD-ROMs can't easily be probed from within the search tree and that was a perceived big advantage. That is funny: one-input one-output but orders-more-faster is suddenly not exactly neutral anymore. Wonder why they would allow that while the discovery that one was illegally using the number 0.0 in a time-related function was a big deal a few years later..."

This hypothetical historian might then shrug his shoulders and instead study the ways of the banned programmers who were much closer to solving chess at the time but outcast by their peers.

I'm not an expert but I've heard of a program called 'bayeselo', many rating lists seem to use it.

What is the INPUT for BayesElo? (BTW I use it daily in my cluster testing). The answer is "raw PGN". From WHAT games? Under WHAT conditions? Under WHAT time controls? Etc. Too easy to manipulate.

Conditions set by the TD, or prior winners, whatever, its implementation is solvable.

You are using a recursive process. You don't let them compete until they show a significant improvement. They can't show a significant improvement if they can't compete. How, exactly, does that seem like a rational process???

I think that bear is dead. It is possible to play vetting games before the tournament to show added value over what you started out with. A bit how it was done for one of the programs in the olympiad this year. (One program was asked to play games before being allowed in its tournament, and lo and behold, it turned out to be possible to do so without creating a logical fallacy or infinite recursion.).