TalkChess.com

sockmonkey wrote:Hi,

I am finished with talkchess.com. The site administration and my co-moderator Graham Banks have made it impossible for me to continue as a moderator, and in a more extended sense, as a member of this community. Before I explain my reasons for leaving: I am starting a new, free, uncensored, (though unconditionally non-warez) computer chess site -- OpenChess -- which can be found at http://www.open-chess.org/ -- effective immediately. I hope that, with time, it will become a valuable alternative to talkchess.com, but without commercial influence over content, and without biased moderation or censorship of discussions in progress. I encourage anyone with an interest in computer chess, everyone who desires a forum where free, uncensored, tolerant discourse is possible, engine authors as well as testers and end-users, to join. There's not much there yet, but that's just a matter of time and your participation. As we populate and organize OpenChess, your suggestions are welcome.

To my reasons... The moderation team was informed yesterday by the site administrator, Sam Hull, that the site owners, Your Move Chess & Games/ICD, want the moderation team to aggressively remove links and any posts which could be seen as "encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy". "Software of questionable legitimacy" obviously refers to the engines derived from the source code known as I--- (I censor myself here to avoid being banned to the CEO forum by Graham), and the request was justified by the various commercial partnerships which YMC&G/ICD maintains. The immediate consequence of this new directive was that Graham dumped a number of threads into the hidden Chess Engine Origins forum, including several posts which merely mention the engines in question. Most objectionable to me was a post which simply reproduced a couple of lines of analysis output from one of the questionable engines -- the problem was apparently that the clone's analysis was more accurate than Rybka 4's.

Graham has no doubt in his mind about the meaning of "encouragement" or "promotion" -- it means any positive or neutral mention of the existence of said software (insults are fine, of course). He's never made any bones about his personal agenda vis a vis the "clone" engines, nor his disdain and intolerance for anyone who demands evidence for the claims which have been made against them. This bias has been a source of tension and disagreement within the moderation team (with one or two regrettable public incidents) for the entire term. Graham, who's done zero moderation of talkchess in the last month and half out of protest against open discussion of these engines, got back in the saddle last night when he heard the good news and started purging. When I protested, my attempts at discussion or compromise were refused. In fact, Graham was only willing to discuss whether the "clones" would be removed from the Tournaments sub-forum, as well.

I ran for moderator on a platform of open, civil discussion. The newest developments make open discussion at talkchess.com de facto impossible. Never mind that there is overwhelming technical evidence demonstrating that IPPOLIT and friends are NOT clones (at least as a counterpoint to the significant circumstantial evidence in favor of them being clones). Never mind the principle by which accusations should be backed up with evidence before they are taken seriously, or used as the basis for decisions to censor or banish discussion. Never mind that "the posts on the Computer-Chess Club message board do not necessarily agree (nor disagree) with the opinions of Your Move Chess & Games, I.C.D. Corporation, or Computer Chess Reports, and these companies do not control, and have no say in, what is posted or how it is posted. Nor do any of these organizations have any say or control over decisions made by the moderators." That's from the Charter, in case you missed the reference.

If it has really come to this, where, in violation of talkchess.com's own charter, Your Move Chess & Games/ICD can influence forum content in favor of their commercial interests, where moderators feel smugly justified simply censoring threads and posts which contain mention of or factual data (analysis output!) regarding or generated by undesired software, then I cannot stay here. I am not a salesman -- as moderator, it's not my job to help YMC&G/ICD move their merchandise. Nor am I a nanny -- it's not my job to protect forum members or visitors from legal, freely available, relevant, topical information or discussion with one another. And I do not want my name associated with a community which hinders, suppresses, deletes or censors discussion, or with moderators who feel comfortable bullying and alienating "illegitimate" users.

So, once again, goodbye, talkchess. I apologize to anyone that I am letting down by abandoning my months-long effort to keep Graham away from your posts, but I've been undermined by the administration and will not continue to roll this proverbial stone up the proverbial mountain. I hope to see you on OpenChess soon (http://www.open-chess.org/).

Taking the high road regards,
Jeremy

AdminX wrote:
This is the 1st time I have understood what you have said word for word! Your English has really improved! Keep up the good writing!

Steve B wrote:

AdminX wrote:
This is the 1st time I have understood what you have said word for word! Your English has really improved! Keep up the good writing!

That still doesn't stop Rolf's premise from being totally wrong though

i have known Steve S since he opened shop back in 1984 selling dedicated chess computers
i lived within a short driving distance from his shop
met him several times in person and spoke frequently on the phone with him in the intervening years

and i was around right after the board started here
Steve S. never interfered in what was posted here and he took no "Uberlord" position about anything that went on here
he agreed to host the board in return for his banner on the top of the page..period

others around at the time of the boards formation can testify to this as well i imagine

More Understandable but wrong nevertheless regards
Steve

Graham Banks wrote:

Sam Hull wrote: (a) Sorry for weighing in late. Our downtown Dallas office building has lost power and shut down my entire network two business days in a row, and I couldn't get back to the board after posting the guidance from Quentin for the CCC mods until now.

(b) There has been a rather large misunderstanding, and Jeremy has slightly misquoted what I passed along from ICD/Your Move. The guidance is simply to not tolerate anything that looks like a LINK to illegitimate software in CCC. No one said anything about censoring discussions or removing posts that simply make allusions or offer evaluations. Graham misunderstood the intent of the guidance - I have clarified it in detail for him this evening via IM. Where the issue of clones is concerned, and for the board in general, the goal of fair and balanced moderation has not changed, and there is no desire for favoritism in ANY direction.

(c) I hope Jeremy will reconsider his decision. I have not had a chance to converse with him directly and have received no PMs from him. I posted responses in the moderator forum as soon as I regained internet access, but I am still locked out of e-mail and will be until tomorrow morning. I think Jeremy has been an outstanding moderator and I fully support his philosophy of moderation - always have.

(d) I don't set moderation policy. I passed along a request to the CCC mods that I received from Quentin, which came as the result of certain members haranguing ICD about real, suspected, and imagined clones. Graham misunderstood the message, performed some moderation on that basis, and Jeremy decided to post a grand exit without waiting to get any clarification about the guidance.

(e) Personally I am surprised that two CCC mods who share an opinion cannot simply outvote and override one mod on those occasions when has a different view. I got regularly overridden for two whole terms in CTF. I haven't complained, and nobody died. It's a discussion board, folks.

(f) If a member runs for moderator and is elected, I think it is fair to expect him to honor his commitment and serve out the term.

-Sam-

In a nutshell, our sponsor would like the CCC mod team to be as aggressive as possible in removing anything that looks like a questionable link, or any other encouragement to acquire software of questionable legitimacy.

This was the part of the message that I misinterpreted. My understanding was that any post praising the strength or qualities of the engines in question was actually encouraging members to acquire them.
Once Jeremy gave me the go ahead to remove some of the threads as long as I left a message (he was going to bed at the time), I went ahead and did so. However, it seems that I was too liberal in my interpretation of what he actually meant.

I therefore apologise to Sam, to my fellow moderators and also to the forum membership for the controversy and unfortunate situation that has occurred due to this genuine misunderstanding.
I am happy to work with Jeremy and Swami to undo as much of the damage as we can, if they're prepared to do so. This would include an amendment of the announcement posted.

Cheers,
Graham.

Milos wrote:

Rolf wrote: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...

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

Milos wrote:

Rolf wrote: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

Rolf wrote:Thanks Harvey this is great.