dj wrote:All these +10 and +1 posts are pointless - just as it would be for others to respond with -10 or -1. The way to count numbers is not for dozens of posts with +1 or -1 but a poll. Better still would be to post nothing unless one actually has something to say other than a mere "agreed" or its wordy variants such as "count me as well".
+1 means I am annoyed by all these neverending Rybka/ICGA threads. I'm on neither side, i don't care about Rybka and I don't care about ICGA. And I don't care about what others think of me.
If you want to run a poll, do it. If you find my post useless, fine. I feel the same for yours.
Eh? I did not say that I wanted a poll. I suggested that instead of producing puerile posts such as "+1" or "count me in" your might start a poll instead. I also added that it would be better not to write anything at all if "+1" and "count me in" is the limit of your vocabulary and intelligence. Like you I am not on either side. What I cannot abide is somebody - whether on one side or the other or on no side at all - who writes something as inane as +10 or +1.
Just as well that you add that you" don't care about what others think of me."
+6.5
Had I wanted to stand as an individual for reelection as a CTF moderator, my election statement would have been a declaration of intent to ban any poster who simply posted "+1". In fact, during the short time in which I considered the possibility of standing, I prepared and saved the draft below:
“I intend to progressively implement the following sanctions, listed in increasing order of severity, against members who continually respond to the posts of other members with the comment “+1”:
a circumcision without anaesthetic and with a blunt knife.
b brain extraction through the nostrils with a wire hook.
c eternal banishment to the Rybka forum, to dwell in the midst of such as “Banned for Cheating”.
If I may ask, what bothers you about such responses?
If you have to ask the question then you would not understand the answer.
What bothers me far more than people who post "+1" are people who quote large piles of text by someone else, including several layers of nested quotes tracing back the entire history of the conversation.
I'd much rather see people edit the quoted stuff so it contains JUST the point they are responding to (and maybe also what that person was responding to... but not 6 levels of responses going back to the very beginning of the thread, please!)
For example, compare the giant quoted wad above to this:
dj wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:If I may ask, what bothers you about such responses?
If you have to ask the question then you would not understand the answer.
Quoting only the important part (the part you are responding to) takes a tiny bit more effort, but saves enormous vertical space for flat mode readers, and keeps the threads from becoming 20+ pages long with only 2-3 posts per page, each 95% filled by a giant block of quoted text. This is especially helpful for readers with small screens (phones etc.)
[Idea: Maybe someone could hack the forum software so it automatically replaced the contents of any
wgarvin wrote:What bothers me far more than people who post "+1" are people who quote large piles of text by someone else, including several layers of nested quotes tracing back the entire history of the conversation.
wgarvin wrote:
What bothers me far more than people who post "+1" are people who quote large piles of text by someone else, including several layers of nested quotes tracing back the entire history of the conversation.
I'd much rather see people edit the quoted stuff so it contains JUST the point they are responding to (and maybe also what that person was responding to... but not 6 levels of responses going back to the very beginning of the thread, please!)
For example, compare the giant quoted wad above to this:
dj wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:If I may ask, what bothers you about such responses?
If you have to ask the question then you would not understand the answer.
Quoting only the important part (the part you are responding to) takes a tiny bit more effort, but saves enormous vertical space for flat mode readers, and keeps the threads from becoming 20+ pages long with only 2-3 posts per page, each 95% filled by a giant block of quoted text. This is especially helpful for readers with small screens (phones etc.)
[Idea: Maybe someone could hack the forum software so it automatically replaced the contents of any block more than 3 levels deep with "..." ?]
I agree with you, even if I am an frequent offender. It is a question of where to edit the quotes. Perhaps it would be best to only quote the immediately preceeding post (or two) and depend on the readers to backtrack if necessary.
wgarvin wrote:[What bothers me far more than people who post "+1" are people who quote large piles of text by someone else, including several layers of nested quotes tracing back the entire history of the conversation.
I'd much rather see people edit the quoted stuff so it contains JUST the point they are responding to (and maybe also what that person was responding to... but not 6 levels of responses going back to the very beginning of the thread, please!)
Agree completely with this. No need to quote everything unless absolutely necessary..
Second, I would also like to inform you that with the knowledge I have today, I would have voted differently in the investigation process. I will explain why: I'm not sure anymore that information provided for making a conclusion about the breaking of the 'spirit' of rule 2 was sufficient. In particular, the entry forms of prior entrants were not considered and should have been. I feel the investigators were insufficiently instructed about how prior entrants have declared their origins.
One of the most misguided statements I have read. Based on this alone:
ChessBase feedback wrote:I regret I didn't persist more at the time the comparison of Rybka's entry form with that of DT's. Because my vote should have been affected as follows:
* If DT's team did declare, on the entry form, that Belle's design was used, I would have voted Vas Rajlich guilty.
* If DT's didn't declare such on the form, I would have voted "not guilty, because there is no difference between DT's entry and VR's. Rule 2 should be applied the same."
* If DT's entry form was not to be found anymore, I would have voted "not guilty, because the information was insufficient to make an informed decision."
That makes no sense to me. How does DT's entry form have ANYTHING to do with whether or not Rybka is based on Fruit? It is as relevant as basing guilty/non-guilty on whether it is raining or not-raining, etc.
DT did not contain any "code" from belle whatsoever. Belle was blown-out diodes in an old FPGA implementation. DT was an ASIC design with a completely different implementation, as is explained in Hsu's dissertation. But all of that aside, what does it have to do with Rybka/Fruit? Absolutely nothing...
As I have understood Marcel it's about the sense of the submission details, how it is understood by the participants, how it has been practiced during the years by the participants and how that information was used by the ICGA.
For instance, I only once filled in the submission details because I thought it was meant to highlight (boast) your program. So I was surprised to learn it was used as an argument against Rybka.
But Marcel can better explain himself.
I think the only detail that matters is (a) is your program original? if not, (b) do you have permission from the authors of code you copied to be "the one participant" for that "family"?
There should not be any mention of Belle on the DT applications. Absolutely no code was copied. Ken had no "code" to copy. While Hsu used a silicon compiler and project MOSIS to produce his ASIC chips....
wgarvin wrote:What bothers me far more than people who post "+1" are people who quote large piles of text by someone else, including several layers of nested quotes tracing back the entire history of the conversation.
wgarvin wrote:What bothers me far more than people who post "+1" are people who quote large piles of text by someone else, including several layers of nested quotes tracing back the entire history of the conversation.
+1
+1
The two of you are just trying to be trouble makers now
dj wrote:All these +10 and +1 posts are pointless - just as it would be for others to respond with -10 or -1. The way to count numbers is not for dozens of posts with +1 or -1 but a poll. Better still would be to post nothing unless one actually has something to say other than a mere "agreed" or its wordy variants such as "count me as well".
+1 means I am annoyed by all these neverending Rybka/ICGA threads. I'm on neither side, i don't care about Rybka and I don't care about ICGA. And I don't care about what others think of me.
If you want to run a poll, do it. If you find my post useless, fine. I feel the same for yours.
Eh? I did not say that I wanted a poll. I suggested that instead of producing puerile posts such as "+1" or "count me in" your might start a poll instead. I also added that it would be better not to write anything at all if "+1" and "count me in" is the limit of your vocabulary and intelligence. Like you I am not on either side. What I cannot abide is somebody - whether on one side or the other or on no side at all - who writes something as inane as +10 or +1.
Just as well that you add that you" don't care about what others think of me."
+6.5
Had I wanted to stand as an individual for reelection as a CTF moderator, my election statement would have been a declaration of intent to ban any poster who simply posted "+1". In fact, during the short time in which I considered the possibility of standing, I prepared and saved the draft below:
“I intend to progressively implement the following sanctions, listed in increasing order of severity, against members who continually respond to the posts of other members with the comment “+1”:
a circumcision without anaesthetic and with a blunt knife.
b brain extraction through the nostrils with a wire hook.
c eternal banishment to the Rybka forum, to dwell in the midst of such as “Banned for Cheating”.
It likely was a good idea not to run for re-election if you had become anywhere near this level of frustration. I'm glad your sense of humour wasn't affected!
To be honest, I've lost interest in moderating CTF and haven't tried to run for more than a year and it's not due to lack of popularity or a defeatist attitude. I've lost faith in the forum itself to grow or develope.
Ed, we would prefer such topics regarding the Rybka/Fruit case (or any other discussion regarding the originality or not of any engine) to be created directly in the Engines Origin forum, where they belong. So, please, next time consider it before posting in this forum, where it annoys the majority of users (and our task is mainly to keep Talkchess be a nice place).
We won't directly move or lock this thread yet, but we will watch it very carefully and will lock it as soon as it derails (@all: see point #1 of our Moderation Policy Statement).
The moderators have the right to ask people to post such topics in the Engine origin forum but I think that they have no data to know if posting them in this forum annoys the majority of users.
Exactly. Actually, Uri, he said the "vast majority", which is very different - a point I made on the Engine Origins forum in reply to Julien's claims about the many and the few: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 81&t=42500
But wasn't the engine origin forum started for this very reason, that the majority (vast or not) of users grew tired of all rybka/ippo etc. threads? If so, I think it's pretty safe to assume that is still the case. If not, why is there such a forum to begin with?
No, it was created as a place to "hide" the discussions... Nothing more. Engine origin discussion is a highly relevant computer chess topic.
bob wrote:
No, it was created as a place to "hide" the discussions... Nothing more. Engine origin discussion is a highly relevant computer chess topic.
Well, to me it doesn't matter what the intent of the founding fathers was. Its a nice place to dump these extremely charged threads. Sure, they are relevant, so relevant they have their own forum! But just like the other forums, it describes a big chunk of posts that a big portion of people don't always feel like reading. I would personally be just as annoyed seeing tournament results always posted in the general forum as I am seeing this stuff. Its not that I never read it, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. But its such a prolific topic with such a segmented audience that it seems worth strongly encouraging usage of the sub forum in my mind. If people want to open it up to everyone (it may have some heated discussions that I consider a bit embarrassing at times for our field, but certainly not any worse than CTF) I am OK with that, though I never really understood what the big deal was about forcing people to have an account since no one is ever denied one to my knowledge.
