Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Rolf's HalloweenTerry McCracken wrote:Indeed!Harvey Williamson wrote:This maybe even better http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4Terry McCracken wrote:If you want to discuss this with Dr. David Levy, write him! He's not likely to read it here.Rolf wrote:In short, the internet reveils the worst of people's character.
Let me give you an example, and this is from the highest ranked official in computerchess. After having reveiled that the story of a Cuban Master was probably false that should have brought him to the Japan WCCC, David Levy, although having declared that this remained private, went public with his final verdict "I believe that you are a liar". That was in summer 2010. I wished a President wouldnt use such a vocabulary under any thinkable or justified conditions, nor that he should go into public with such a story. The problem was solved and everything else doesnt interest all over the internet. Who wanted to throw the first stone at this Cuban, we know so little details about why he might have felt pressed to invent such a story. The core of it could have been well reported without original text from emails and stuff like that.
IMO David takes too many things in a too personally assumed manner. I see the same wrong also in Vasik's case with the life ban. Concerning the old age of David it just leaves me speechless. Because this is my answer for you why actually I have a more balanced and forgiving view on the human comedy. Instead of loving and making peace I see sublime aggressiveness, unforgivingness and a hidden satisfaction instead that a chairman would show some interest into the unknown truth of the whole affair. For all because we have such a small community that we almost know everybody by his prename.
A President more so as a senior, should slve such conflicts with respect also for those who are seemingly proven of some wrong. But at that point negotiations in the background should begin how this could be solved. So, a President should send signals that he wanted a solution in kind.
Why not trying to solve our biggest actual conflict with some mediation? Why not giving it a try? Let's find something that saves the so called "face" in the sense of honor.
Please tell me what moves the ICGA and its members could imagine under what conditions.
David, sorry, but couldnt you give it a try? In silent?
I propose Dann Corbit and Graham Banks as candidates for such a process.
Of course all you want to do is spread more lies and disinformation.
You're the Town Clown and that's all you've ever been good at and good for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhDJxEPR ... ACB9BC8C37
Followed Up By....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m138-Fn5Tw&NR=1
Darmok and Jalad at TanagraWatchman wrote:Terry, Roger, Robert...
At great risk to myself, I posted that (thinking "everyone" would think me quite insane).
When I read Ed’s "they don't need long sentences to communicate" this 'one of my favorite TNG episodes’ came almost instantly to mind.
A very nice treat to know you gents enjoyed it!
Best Regards,
-Rob
What will you do if one of the Stockfish authors (for example) expresses an opinion with which you do not agree? To be consistent, you'll have to start over again without SF. We all appreciate the long hours you have put into your list here, and I am pleased to see your interest in testing at longer time limits. But I don't think there will be much interest in a list that leaves off almost all of the top programs just because you disagree with one author's opinion on one topic. Who will care by what margin Critter or SF defeat program X when Houdini, Komodo, and Rybka will be the top programs in the forseeable future (unless Critter or SF make a nice jump). I personally think that leaving out Rybka (either from your list or from tournaments) is not a good idea, because although early Rybka versions appear to be "tainted", there is little reason to think this about current ones. I don't even object to Houdini being on the lists, I only object to its being considered to be primarily the work of its nominal author.Frank Quisinsky wrote:Hi there,
wow, what I read here give me a lot of power back. Very interesting discussion.
I have enough from group A (clone finders) and group B (critical engines which stands each time again and again in the middle of all these discussions).
So far I am not really sure what I should do now. Many people like my work and I have fun to do a bit and public my material.
My idea is:
To start a new rating list with two things I can make better as in the time before. My older paper basket SWCR had three problems:
1. Time control are not high enough
2. I used endgame databases. I think today that engines should play without endgame databases.
3. Engine I can't not longer support.
What I have in my brain:
To play tournaments in LIVE mode with a group of 30 engines. Each one vs. each one 4 games. And I will used actual engines, more amateurs. I believe the amateurs will have fun with this work. I will more look in the games, more game examples on my webpages as only results and news.
1. Without:
Houdini, Rybka
2. Without:
The engines by the open letters programmers
3. Without:
Older engines like Zappa, Loop, Thinker, Ktulu and so one. Newer developments are more important.
4. With basic engines like:
Stockfish, Critter, Spark, Hannibal, Naum, Umko, Protector, GullChess, Equinox, BugChess, Cyclone, Gaviota and and and ...
5. Different olders for a good mix:
AnMon, Francesca, Rebel for an example
6. And a lot of new engines.
Chiron for an example too ...
I don't have so far enough knowledge to engines I not used in the past. Glass or others for an example. I will try to contact Graham for more information and will look a bit in the results by others. I hope Graham can give me the tipps I need which of the amateurs I should add and which of the programmers from the amateurs can have be fun.
And I can hold my own motivation to 100%. Will do that with a lot of information to these engines, will write a new "News Page" and try all to make very interesting for my visitors.
No interest to be a longer time a part of these war with a rating list. Very interesting for myself is: All the amateurs which have interest on programming and more interest on his own work don't discuss often about topics like clones. This I have to support if I like my hobby.
Should the others create his own war.
I have enough from all this.
Best
Frank
Larry,lkaufman wrote:What will you do if one of the Stockfish authors (for example) expresses an opinion with which you do not agree? To be consistent, you'll have to start over again without SF. We all appreciate the long hours you have put into your list here, and I am pleased to see your interest in testing at longer time limits. But I don't think there will be much interest in a list that leaves off almost all of the top programs just because you disagree with one author's opinion on one topic. Who will care by what margin Critter or SF defeat program X when Houdini, Komodo, and Rybka will be the top programs in the forseeable future (unless Critter or SF make a nice jump). I personally think that leaving out Rybka (either from your list or from tournaments) is not a good idea, because although early Rybka versions appear to be "tainted", there is little reason to think this about current ones. I don't even object to Houdini being on the lists, I only object to its being considered to be primarily the work of its nominal author.Frank Quisinsky wrote:Hi there,
wow, what I read here give me a lot of power back. Very interesting discussion.
I have enough from group A (clone finders) and group B (critical engines which stands each time again and again in the middle of all these discussions).
So far I am not really sure what I should do now. Many people like my work and I have fun to do a bit and public my material.
My idea is:
To start a new rating list with two things I can make better as in the time before. My older paper basket SWCR had three problems:
1. Time control are not high enough
2. I used endgame databases. I think today that engines should play without endgame databases.
3. Engine I can't not longer support.
What I have in my brain:
To play tournaments in LIVE mode with a group of 30 engines. Each one vs. each one 4 games. And I will used actual engines, more amateurs. I believe the amateurs will have fun with this work. I will more look in the games, more game examples on my webpages as only results and news.
1. Without:
Houdini, Rybka
2. Without:
The engines by the open letters programmers
3. Without:
Older engines like Zappa, Loop, Thinker, Ktulu and so one. Newer developments are more important.
4. With basic engines like:
Stockfish, Critter, Spark, Hannibal, Naum, Umko, Protector, GullChess, Equinox, BugChess, Cyclone, Gaviota and and and ...
5. Different olders for a good mix:
AnMon, Francesca, Rebel for an example
6. And a lot of new engines.
Chiron for an example too ...
I don't have so far enough knowledge to engines I not used in the past. Glass or others for an example. I will try to contact Graham for more information and will look a bit in the results by others. I hope Graham can give me the tipps I need which of the amateurs I should add and which of the programmers from the amateurs can have be fun.
And I can hold my own motivation to 100%. Will do that with a lot of information to these engines, will write a new "News Page" and try all to make very interesting for my visitors.
No interest to be a longer time a part of these war with a rating list. Very interesting for myself is: All the amateurs which have interest on programming and more interest on his own work don't discuss often about topics like clones. This I have to support if I like my hobby.
Should the others create his own war.
I have enough from all this.
Best
Frank
Thou shalt have no other forum before us;Kempelen wrote:Very hard for me to read this long thread, althought I have been reading something.
I dont know if this has been proposed before, what about to write a decalog of behavior and forum rules?. Maybe a list for each subforum, and banner or admonish any who fault to them. The better the rules description, the better.
Even a new subforum to place offended and "garbage" threads would be a good idea, so there would be a desire for anyone to not be place there....
Why, thank you Fern!fern wrote:Very good, Julien. Masterly use of biblical words and syntactic...You are a potential writer.
Fern
