Is this truthfully?

[De Vos W]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

[Sylwy]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

Do you have some doubts ????


Silvian

[De Vos W]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

Do you have some doubts ????


Silvian

Not really!

[bob]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

I don't consider it a witch hunt. There are two important issues:

(1) in tournaments and other types of competition, "legal" engines are accepted, those that can not be verified as legal are not, because entering a clone/derivative has no usefulness. The more "copies" of a single program that get entered or used in these events increases the probability that that "family" will win. By the same token, testing organizations should be able to use the same reasoning since they are investing a significant amount of computer time to do this testing, and testing the same program with a different name is a waste of resources.

(2) discussions and such should not be quashed, however, as it requires discussion and analysis to determine whether a supposed derivative is one, or not. Those discussions are certainly allowed here. If anyone _wants_ to test derivative works, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Entering them into tournaments, however, is a different issue entirely and that is not allowable.

[De Vos W]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

I don't consider it a witch hunt. There are two important issues:

(1) in tournaments and other types of competition, "legal" engines are accepted, those that can not be verified as legal are not, because entering a clone/derivative has no usefulness. The more "copies" of a single program that get entered or used in these events increases the probability that that "family" will win. By the same token, testing organizations should be able to use the same reasoning since they are investing a significant amount of computer time to do this testing, and testing the same program with a different name is a waste of resources.

(2) discussions and such should not be quashed, however, as it requires discussion and analysis to determine whether a supposed derivative is one, or not. Those discussions are certainly allowed here. If anyone _wants_ to test derivative works, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Entering them into tournaments, however, is a different issue entirely and that is not allowable.

OK! But this is my question.......

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

... maybe its more a question for active testers like Graham Banks, Ray Banks, Shaun Brewer, Adam Hair, Aser Huerga, Kirill Kryukov, Dom Leste, Denis Mendoza, Cody Rowland, Wassim Saeed, Joshua Shriver, Charles Smith, Gabor Szots and Martin Thoresen ect... ?

[bob]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

I don't consider it a witch hunt. There are two important issues:

(1) in tournaments and other types of competition, "legal" engines are accepted, those that can not be verified as legal are not, because entering a clone/derivative has no usefulness. The more "copies" of a single program that get entered or used in these events increases the probability that that "family" will win. By the same token, testing organizations should be able to use the same reasoning since they are investing a significant amount of computer time to do this testing, and testing the same program with a different name is a waste of resources.

(2) discussions and such should not be quashed, however, as it requires discussion and analysis to determine whether a supposed derivative is one, or not. Those discussions are certainly allowed here. If anyone _wants_ to test derivative works, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. Entering them into tournaments, however, is a different issue entirely and that is not allowable.

OK! But this is my question.......

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

... maybe its more a question for active testers like Graham Banks, Ray Banks, Shaun Brewer, Adam Hair, Aser Huerga, Kirill Kryukov, Dom Leste, Denis Mendoza, Cody Rowland, Wassim Saeed, Joshua Shriver, Charles Smith, Gabor Szots and Martin Thoresen ect... ?

Can't respond to that since I don't intend to run in commercial chess circles. However, with the significant number of strong amateur engines around, the commercial guys are going to have a very difficult time trying to dictate which program should be excluded. Because they, themselves, can't afford to be excluded since that is advertising that they sorely need...

[Terry McCracken]

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

... maybe its more a question for active testers like Graham Banks, Ray Banks, Shaun Brewer, Adam Hair, Aser Huerga, Kirill Kryukov, Dom Leste, Denis Mendoza, Cody Rowland, Wassim Saeed, Joshua Shriver, Charles Smith, Gabor Szots and Martin Thoresen ect... ?

Really amusing. I wonder in what way I could be pressured by commercial groups.

Amusing is a word that doesn't leap to mind, they're shit disturbing and from the contact I have with Graham I can be reasonably sure that this isn't the case.

I also am not impressed that they would liken the testers to McCarthy or dredge up old political BS of 60 years ago!

That would be like me comparing these people from Nazi Germany to Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich and the Gestapo!

[Volker Pittlik]

...
Really amusing. I wonder in what way I could be pressured by commercial groups.

Never forget the millions of dollars, houses, and trips around the world we already got at common WinBoard times.

Now such experts as Walter, Ruxy and the genius Czub are around to disclose our dirty secrets to the world.

I'm going to drink good glass of wine now and enjoy a good game of poker.

Regards

[Adam Hair]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

[Graham Banks]

thorstenczub wrote:

The rating list guys have to make nice negotiations/companionship with the companies/programmers who deliver the engines. especially the commercial engines/programmers make pressure on the rating list guys, some pressure diplomatic, some pressure between the lines,
that they should not "support" these engines.
some pressure is done not directly but by people from the surrounding of the programmer working field, the so called water-bearers (in german: wasserträger).
they are often right hand of programmers, operate the programs, control the forums,
some are even admins at playchess etc.

together with the mc_carthy-like computerchess police this creates the witch hunts
the strange censorship in some commercial forums such as hiarcs forum,
rybka forum, talkchess (CCC) etc.

welcome back in the mc carthy times of USA in the 50th year of the 20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

these things are as old as computerchess rating lists exists.
and the criticism to this is also as old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Wouldn't worry Adam. There are a few nutters in all walks of life.