Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
It's low so you can see it Norman and if you have them, feel it!kranium wrote:yes, i understand your only recourse is to insult them...CRoberson wrote: Because of that, you have no proof of its originality nor does anybody else other than the so called authors which don't have the balls to sign their names.
(but their masculinity?)
very sad...
it appears your baseless 'campaign to discredit' is reaching new lows.
kranium wrote:are the ippolit authors obliged to prove their originality?CRoberson wrote:Nothing published in Science is accepted without signature and references. Ippo has none of that. Because of that, you have no proof of its originality nor does anybody else other than the so called authors which don't have the balls to sign their names.kranium wrote:PS-CRoberson wrote: Robo = ippo cleaned up a bit to make it more human readable.
it Robbo, not Robo (i.e. has nothing to do with robotics)
that being said, it makes perfect sense you are ignorant in these matters...
unfortunately, i can't produce a (more acceptable?) CCRL rating list comparing Ippolit vs Robbolito...know why?
because CCRL has never tested either engine!
why not one may ask? well, let's be perfectly honest Charles...
it's because people like you, Bob Hyatt, Don Dailey, Graham Banks, etc., etc. (i.e. the collective 'good-old-boys') have perpetrated an endless campaign to completely discredit anything associated with ippolit...and without any 'stitch'of proof of wrongdoing or illegality.
why?
i don't know, i don't undertand
perhaps you can answer that yourself if you try...
i can only speculate:
a pathetic and desperate need to eliminate ippolit from the reality that it exists and is valid...and is better than my engine?
isn't the 'onus' is upon you to prove wrongdoing...(innocent until proven guilty)
PS-
'signatures' and references...?
what are you talking about?
this is not a job application for a 'Nanny' position..
do you require such 'documents/proofs' for entry into the ACCC?
or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
You are absolutely correct. They have painted themselves into a corner.wgarvin wrote:I think it may be too late. If someone were to start claiming to be the original author of Ippolit or Robbolito, would anyone actually believe them?Terry McCracken wrote: You know what really gets me? I know the authors of the family of Ippo/Robbo/and all it's bothers and sisters are reading and even posting in this forum. I'm waiting for them to finally rip off their idiotic grinning masks for all of us instead of some of us to see.
kranium wrote:
are the ippolit authors obliged to prove their originality?
isn't the 'onus' is upon you to prove wrongdoing...(innocent until proven guilty)
PS-
'signatures' and references...?
what are you talking about?
this is not a job application for a 'Nanny' position..
do you require such 'documents/proofs' for entry into the ACCA?
or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
CRoberson wrote:kranium wrote:
are the ippolit authors obliged to prove their originality?
isn't the 'onus' is upon you to prove wrongdoing...(innocent until proven guilty)
PS-
'signatures' and references...?
what are you talking about?
this is not a job application for a 'Nanny' position..
do you require such 'documents/proofs' for entry into the ACCA?
or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
Rule 2 has been there for years and it covers your question.
http://compchess.org/ACCAWCRCC/2011ACCAWCRCC/WCRCC.html
All entries must be entered by the author by doing so the author claims ownership and that his program is as original as the rules require. At that point, that is enough proof until somebody makes a complaint on its authenticity and they are required to have sufficient reason to make the claim. Note that "sufficient reason" doesn't mean undeniable proof.
I don't do the pairings. When the tournaments are on servers (which all have been) the pairing bots do the pairings. The pairing bots are automated and watched over by the TD who is supplied by the server. I am the organizer, not the TD, and an entrant. So, I have zero influence on the pairings.kranium wrote:CRoberson wrote:kranium wrote:
are the ippolit authors obliged to prove their originality?
isn't the 'onus' is upon you to prove wrongdoing...(innocent until proven guilty)
PS-
'signatures' and references...?
what are you talking about?
this is not a job application for a 'Nanny' position..
do you require such 'documents/proofs' for entry into the ACCA?
or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
Rule 2 has been there for years and it covers your question.
http://compchess.org/ACCAWCRCC/2011ACCAWCRCC/WCRCC.html
All entries must be entered by the author by doing so the author claims ownership and that his program is as original as the rules require. At that point, that is enough proof until somebody makes a complaint on its authenticity and they are required to have sufficient reason to make the claim. Note that "sufficient reason" doesn't mean undeniable proof.
yes!
what a tournament, very exciting
1 t Thinker -bwwbw -lqhga 011111 5
2 h Hannibal wbwbwb ragtcp 11101= 4.5
5 a Arasan bwbwwb shcpqt 10=110 3.5 21
3 c Crafty wbwbbw pqaghs 1===01 3.5 19.5
4 g Gaviota wbbwwb lrhctq 110=01 3.5 18.5
7 p Telepath bwwbbw csraih 01101= 3.5 16.5
6 q RedQueen -wbwbw -ctsag 1=0100 2.5
10 s Symbolic wbwbbb aplqrc 001010 2
11 r Parrot bwb-wb hgp-sl 000101 2
9 i Tinker ---bw- ---lp- 000100 1
8 l Plisk bwbw-w gtsi-r 000010 1
(as expected) congrats to Telepath for the fine finish!
Charles, in all due respect,
i'm quite sure you (as TD and program entrant) could pare the list of entrants even further for your benefit couldn't you?
Telepath has been around for sometime now...CRoberson wrote:I don't do the pairings. When the tournaments are on servers (which all have been) the pairing bots do the pairings. The pairing bots are automated and watched over by the TD who is supplied by the server. I am the organizer, not the TD, and an entrant. So, I have zero influence on the pairings.kranium wrote:CRoberson wrote:kranium wrote:
are the ippolit authors obliged to prove their originality?
isn't the 'onus' is upon you to prove wrongdoing...(innocent until proven guilty)
PS-
'signatures' and references...?
what are you talking about?
this is not a job application for a 'Nanny' position..
do you require such 'documents/proofs' for entry into the ACCA?
or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
Rule 2 has been there for years and it covers your question.
http://compchess.org/ACCAWCRCC/2011ACCAWCRCC/WCRCC.html
All entries must be entered by the author by doing so the author claims ownership and that his program is as original as the rules require. At that point, that is enough proof until somebody makes a complaint on its authenticity and they are required to have sufficient reason to make the claim. Note that "sufficient reason" doesn't mean undeniable proof.
yes!
what a tournament, very exciting
1 t Thinker -bwwbw -lqhga 011111 5
2 h Hannibal wbwbwb ragtcp 11101= 4.5
5 a Arasan bwbwwb shcpqt 10=110 3.5 21
3 c Crafty wbwbbw pqaghs 1===01 3.5 19.5
4 g Gaviota wbbwwb lrhctq 110=01 3.5 18.5
7 p Telepath bwwbbw csraih 01101= 3.5 16.5
6 q RedQueen -wbwbw -ctsag 1=0100 2.5
10 s Symbolic wbwbbb aplqrc 001010 2
11 r Parrot bwb-wb hgp-sl 000101 2
9 i Tinker ---bw- ---lp- 000100 1
8 l Plisk bwbw-w gtsi-r 000010 1
(as expected) congrats to Telepath for the fine finish!
Charles, in all due respect,
i'm quite sure you (as TD and program entrant) could pare the list of entrants even further for your benefit couldn't you?
I set things up that way on our first tournament so that nobody could justifiably make any claim of unfairness. Also, I wanted to enjoy the tournaments which is unlikely if you are in all three roles.
However, in that particular tournament the pairing bot crashed and couldn't be resurrected, so the TD paired the rest by hand. The TD was HGM not me. I've never been a TD in any of the ACCA tournaments. In that tournament the participation was restricted to a geographic region which limits the participants. Of course, we have another annual event which doesn't have any geographic limitations.
kranium wrote:wrong...CRoberson wrote: Robo = ippo cleaned up a bit to make it more human readable.
there's quite a bit more, (especially if you take time to look, and not simply rush to judgement, and post something because it serves your seemingly 'Elitist' agenda)
version 0.09
- The source code readability greatly improved, translations added and updated, indentation and white space usage unified and standardized
-All new features easy adjustable during compilation time by setting appropriate switches in robbolito.h
-Alignment of hash structures improved
-Improved bit scan functions
-Improved rand function
-New version of popcnt function as an option
-Cache prefetching added
-New smooth scaling of null move, inspired by Dann Corbit's idea, and modified for Robbolito
-Improved time management especially in time controls without increment and tournament. The basic TM from g3, improved with some ideas from e4 and from the anonymous author.
Ps-
here's the longest running rating list from Immortal...
seems like Robbolito is well ahead...where did you get your info?
or is this just another part of the unending CCC 'good-old boys' misinformation campaign to discredit others?
Sorry, are you the guy asking today this about the ratings/rankings?CRoberson wrote:kranium wrote:
are the ippolit authors obliged to prove their originality?
isn't the 'onus' is upon you to prove wrongdoing...(innocent until proven guilty)
PS-
'signatures' and references...?
what are you talking about?
this is not a job application for a 'Nanny' position..
do you require such 'documents/proofs' for entry into the ACCA?
or are you just making stuff up as you go along?
Rule 2 has been there for years and it covers your question.
http://compchess.org/ACCAWCRCC/2011ACCAWCRCC/WCRCC.html
All entries must be entered by the author by doing so the author claims ownership and that his program is as original as the rules require. At that point, that is enough proof until somebody makes a complaint on its authenticity and they are required to have sufficient reason to make the claim. Note that "sufficient reason" doesn't mean undeniable proof.
