Goodbye Talkchess

[solis]

I am sure that Steven Schwartz would have stopped the noise for the illegal engines, Sam and Grah are two very thoughtful and mature persons...

Oh noooo, Rolf is back. Now CCC is really doomed...

A real tragedy indeed....I thought that he had quit computer chess and went farming or something,but....
The annoying thing is back regards,
Dr.D

Hi Dr. D,
I hope to see you in the new forum.
Best wishes and good luck to those who are staying on this dying forum

[rlsuth]

The only reason that I can post crap.....

Never a truer word spoken in jest.

[bob]

Let Graham and Sam enjoy moderating each other when this finally falls apart....

I am sure that Steven Schwartz would have stopped the noise for the illegal engines, Sam and Grah are two very thoughtful and mature persons, and I say this although they had differing opinions to my own. Their mastership could be described as follows, they have a somewhat consitant mindframe and dont change it every seasons, in other words it's impossible to corrupt them.

Although I admire the US practice of openess in science which led to the opensource model, I fear that even Americans didnt quite understand that this concept has limits. Look into the military for example. A community shouldnt follow nonsense that leads to suicide. Academics should understand that.

I had many months now trying to understand two questions. Why Bob supported the Ippo development? I didnt find a solution. When would Rybka 4 be a success: only with a plus Elo of 150? Here I found out that the question is already stupid. Because there is no absolute value of a software update in computerchess when the strength is mostly defined by hardware. A chess software for 36 € which leads all rankings and wins all tournaments is IMO better than open engines on lower ranks. For those in chess who must know what the God's moves are they must have the strongest Rybka 4 on clusters. Top GM and corr players. It's crazy that many interested wrongly assumed that the strength of a software could be seen as hardware-independant!

I wish that at least all the academics who have the better hardware in their brain will come back soon to the forum, that was also in that respect state of the art in computerchess. IMO the actual situation was initiated by outcasting the World Champ Vas Rajlich 5 years ago plus then the dirty campaign against Rybka. Let's come back to a new chapter with respect for ethical bases. The motto should be: No support for criminal attempts by invisible cowards!

P.S. It's self-understanding that I want to mention the sad event from Leiden when Larry Kaufman had to go to the clinic. Let us all wish him well, because beyond all the conflicts in the community we shouldnt forget that we are all only humans and no machines. Let's treat us mutually with care so that we can enjoy our hobby as older seniors as long as possible.

I wish you all the best and may sanity and creativity be with you.

Rolf

I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from. We (the moderators when it first appeared) chose to not allow links to the program or its web site, although we felt obligated to allow discussions about the program since that is what CCC is _supposed_ to be about. As soon as Vas made the claim that this was a clone, we acted. And then we waited for some evidence. And waited. And waited. Until it became apparent that no evidence was forthcoming. After 3 months, we decided that it was unfair to take a claim with absolutely no evidence, and penalize a program. ICGA has done this in the past where a claim is made, immediate evidence is demanded, and either the evidence upholds the claim and the program is not allowed to compete, or the evidence does not support the claim and the program is accepted.

I have nothing to gain from the Ippo* project, nor anything to lose. I am not one of the authors, I am not a user, so have no dog in this hunt. I simply believe that without evidence a claim can not be taken seriously. And we don't have anything but anecdotal evidence here. A says "xxxxx", B thinks "yyyyy". That's not good enough.

If the owners of ICD want to dictate what is allowable and what is not, that represents a huge problem because it is an obvious conflict of interest. Steve _never_ made any such attempts. Things have changed. For the worse. Not to mention Graham's moderation philosophy.

As far as this "personal attack against Vas" you keep mentioning, my only comment deals with his ethics (or lack thereof) with regard to copying code from Fruit and then denying that this happened, completely. He'd have fared much better in "the court of public opinion" had he simply said "I started with the fruit source, but have modified it heavily and today little if any of that code remains." We didn't get that kind of honesty however. We got "silence".

[Rolf]

As far as this "personal attack against Vas" you keep mentioning, my only comment deals with his ethics (or lack thereof) with regard to copying code from Fruit and then denying that this happened, completely. He'd have fared much better in "the court of public opinion" had he simply said "I started with the fruit source, but have modified it heavily and today little if any of that code remains." We didn't get that kind of honesty however. We got "silence".

Let's not pretend that you or we all or you and C.Theron had the authorization for a public court. In my books someone who wasnt convicted by a judge - is innocent. Never heard that you were a judge or anything near to that. For me Vas is a pure gentleman. And I recall that Vas and Fabien were together in Reykjavik. So, gentleman, plus the talks on Island is sufficient for me that everything was kosher between these two strong programmers. The strongest of the new century.

The rest is envie and character defamation. What you see as proof against Vas - that he doesnt speak - is for me just a typical style of a real gentleman. We should call him back!

[bob]

I don't think "ICD, Your Move" has threatened to "Shut down the forum" if we don't delete links to Robbolito/Houdini/Ivanhoe.

They just requested us to delete the links but they didn't state the _consequences_ if the request was not fulfilled.

This is explained quite simply. When given any sort of instructions, some will always "interpret" them in the way that supports their agenda in the best way, rather than interpreting them in the "sanest" way.

If it comes to a choice between doing as requested or risking the forum being shut down, I choose to do as requested.
I did post an announcement explaining the situation as I understood it at the time, before taking the actions that I did.
However, I misinterpreted the extent of what was expected and I've since apologised for it.

Cheers,
Graham.

[Albert Silver]

I'll say this again, "Bob doesn't support the Ippo* development". I do not know what the thing is, nor where it came from.

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

[Steve B]

As far as this "personal attack against Vas" you keep mentioning, my only comment deals with his ethics (or lack thereof) with regard to copying code from Fruit and then denying that this happened, completely. He'd have fared much better in "the court of public opinion" had he simply said "I started with the fruit source, but have modified it heavily and today little if any of that code remains." We didn't get that kind of honesty however. We got "silence".

Let's not pretend that you or we all or you and C.Theron had the authorization for a public court. In my books someone who wasnt convicted by a judge - is innocent. Never heard that you were a judge or anything near to that. For me Vas is a pure gentleman. And I recall that Vas and Fabien were together in Reykjavik. So, gentleman, plus the talks on Island is sufficient for me that everything was kosher between these two strong programmers. The strongest of the new century.

The rest is envie and character defamation. What you see as proof against Vas - that he doesnt speak - is for me just a typical style of a real gentleman. We should call him back!

Well then you must have not considered him much of a gentleman when he had no problem commenting on the "Strelka" issue
he gave snippets of copied code and called Strelka out for being a clone..he then called it"his own" meaning it was a clone
this is what Bob has done in the past whenever a Crafty clone came along
Bob and Vas(Strelka) he did not rely on others to speak for them or defend them
it simply makes no sense that he would comment on Strelka and remain silent on Ippo..

all we the mods of the prior term would have needed was a similar statement by Vas..one post...done
and perhaps a year of this nonsense would have stopped right then and there
as Bob said..we waited and waited and we are still waiting

instead we got others speaking for Vas or digging their heels in..for Vas..or he said/she said

Steve

[bob]

Graham has been outvoted consistently this term. It hasn't changed his readiness to moderate unilaterally and aggressively against posts and members which whom he does not personally agree. When I tried to put on the brakes, I was told (by Graham) to stop playing games, that this was no longer a moderation issue, and that our previous agreements were no longer valid. Essentially, "tough luck, dipshit, I'm doing what I want." This has also been a theme this moderation term, and no amount of voting, discussion or debate has changed the fact that certain moderators (Graham being a paramount example) feel that (or act as if) their personal convictions are more important than the general will of the forum.

I think you're being overly harsh Jeremy and I would hope that I've not attacked your integrity publicly in the same manner. I've certainly not let any polls on your moderation ability hang around for more than 24 hours.

I have tried to treat members equally and have always communicated respectfully with them. Personal comments/insults have been removed consistently with no bias on my part. I'm sorry that you perceive it differently.

I have explained why I acted as I did after the message that Sam passed on to us. I believed that I was doing the right thing at the time, but have since apologised to everybody for misunderstanding exactly what was meant.

Anyway, best wishes with your new forum and with married life.

Cheers,
Graham.

Graham, the biggest problem _I_ have with you is that you _always_ act first, then analyze consequences later. This dates all the way back to when CCC first moved to the new software. Remember the "great edit fiasco"??? Nobody in their right mind would believe that they have the authority to edit someone else's words. Even if they have the capability. And do you remember how the members reacted to that? You wanted a poll to determine what the majority wanted. And you appeared to be surprised at the results. Then we get to the Ippo* issue, which first "broke" when Steve, Dann and I were moderators. We received more complaints from you, by a factor of 10, than we received from other members combined. Any mention of Ippo* brought yet another moderation request. Then you became moderator and decided that you could do what you want, whenver you wanted, because you were elected. Elections are not always a good thing, because not everyone is voting for what is best for the board, they are voting for whatever will further their agenda best.

This has, without a doubt, been the _worst_ moderator term in history, and that is a _long_ history. I helped start CCC. I have been here ever since. What you think a moderator should do was _never_ what we envisioned.

Jeremy's idea is a good one, except that I hope he doesn't fall into the "elect the moderators" cesspool again. I want to see open discussions, not discussions about open discussions and moderator actions. I suspect I have been here longer than any other member, since I was one of the first 10 signups (the original founder's group) and the other founders have slowly faded away. I _know_ what we originally intended, I don't have to guess. I don't have an agenda to further, other than to see computer chess continue to reach new levels.

Seems that the new "owners" have a different vision for CCC. Time will tell whether that vision will work or not. Meanwhile, I suspect more and more will move to OpenChess if they want technical discussions.

Hopefully the next moderator elections can also qualify exactly what ICD chess expects and whether or not they will agree to remain totally hands-off or not. If not, then the end is near.

[Milos]

It comes from a neverending stream of posts of yours that contain statements such as:

"I am completely unconcerned about the reverse-engineering that has been done. Seems like a fair way to "even the playing field" by forcing a secretive author to expose secrets he has desparately tried to hide by obfuscation of this PV, depth and node counter displays. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this at all. It isn't my concern..."

What amazes me when reading your posts is the correlation between the amount of Vas defending/worshiping and the amount of Rybkas received as a gift...

[bob]

goodbye, take hyatt with you

The point would be to erase my technical replies as opposed to your drivel?

seems like a good trade to me.