Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
A bold statement coming from a person that cannot hexedit the name of the engine and for whom compiling is a rocket science...Graham Banks wrote:It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.
Oh damn!Milos wrote:A bold statement coming from a person that cannot hexedit the name of the engine and for whom compiling is a rocket science...Graham Banks wrote:It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.
You just disqualified yourself from man and dog category.
Raising standard is just BS. It demotivated chess authors from programming and competing and degraded the level of chess. The great man Fabien lost interest because of scumbag Vas. That speaks volumes...Albert Silver wrote:You are mistaken. It raised the standard. It raised the standard of ability/strength, it raised the standard of what can be achieved within a year, and it raised the standard of chess analysis. It did not add to the knowledge of the science, but not only did no one state this, but Don, Dann, and others have explicitly distinguished there are all manners of contributing that do not involve selflessness.
If you see my "Old Shep" up there among the top 5 you know my bitch has made it to the big time.Graham Banks wrote:Oh damn!Milos wrote:A bold statement coming from a person that cannot hexedit the name of the engine and for whom compiling is a rocket science...Graham Banks wrote:It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.
You just disqualified yourself from man and dog category.
You Russians haven't done squat with the code to come up with another Rising Star....I guess we'll have to wait for the Chinese....Milos wrote:A bold statement coming from a person that cannot hexedit the name of the engine and for whom compiling is a rocket science...Graham Banks wrote:It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.
You just disqualified yourself from man and dog category.
A cheetah is also not in a man and dog category...Terry McCracken wrote:You Russians haven't done squat with the code to come up with another Rising Star....I guess we'll have to wait for the Chinese....
Milos is Russian?Terry McCracken wrote:You Russians haven't done squat with the code to come up with another Rising Star....I guess we'll have to wait for the Chinese....Milos wrote:A bold statement coming from a person that cannot hexedit the name of the engine and for whom compiling is a rocket science...Graham Banks wrote:It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.
You just disqualified yourself from man and dog category.
Some gave up. Some worked harder. Why can't both of these be right?Milos wrote:As I said up there not many ppl buys that pure speculation. It's just a pathetic argument in vain attempt to justify Vas's "contributions".Michael Sherwin wrote:A contribution can be indirect. In the case of Rybka the indirect contribution was to set a goal for others to achieve. Now there are programs stronger than R3 that happened in less time than it would have happened if there was no R3.
I can speculate completly opposite - for example since Rybka was so much stronger many authors lost their motivation and confidence (some even started seeing Vas as god, and you know, you can't compete with a divine being) and that slowed progress a lot.
And there is no way you'd be more right than me...
As a matter of fact, there are quite a bit of examples that confirm my argumentation. For example if you take best leagues in football (for USA ppl soccer) in Europe you will see that leagues where one team dominates from year to year are much weaker than leagues where you have several more less equal competitors (for example Bundesliga vs. Premiership)
They can of course. It's just that we can't know which outcome would have bigger influence on computer chess. Therefore, it is not a valid argument for claiming contribution.Michael Sherwin wrote:Some gave up. Some worked harder. Why can't both of these be right?Milos wrote:As I said up there not many ppl buys that pure speculation. It's just a pathetic argument in vain attempt to justify Vas's "contributions".Michael Sherwin wrote:A contribution can be indirect. In the case of Rybka the indirect contribution was to set a goal for others to achieve. Now there are programs stronger than R3 that happened in less time than it would have happened if there was no R3.
I can speculate completly opposite - for example since Rybka was so much stronger many authors lost their motivation and confidence (some even started seeing Vas as god, and you know, you can't compete with a divine being
And there is no way you'd be more right than me...
As a matter of fact, there are quite a bit of examples that confirm my argumentation. For example if you take best leagues in football (for USA ppl soccer) in Europe you will see that leagues where one team dominates from year to year are much weaker than leagues where you have several more less equal competitors (for example Bundesliga vs. Premiership)
Didn't know that dogs can help when writing a chess programGraham Banks wrote:It has been reverse engineered and had the resulting "code" published. Now every man and his dog that can't write an original engine of their own are using it as a base for a strong engine that they call their own.bob wrote:All Rybka has _added_ is another very strong program. It has added _nothing_ to the body of science applied to computer chess.Albert Silver wrote: I have no idea what you are talking about. I commented that the word contribution is not philanthropism, but means to add, thus Rybka, which is the subject here, has added to the field.