Adam Hair wrote:a person who does not really give a damn about the computer chess community and whose only concern is what he/she can take from it. I am not claiming that this describes you, but you are claiming there is justification for this point of view.
If you knowingly receive stolen goods, does that not make a statement about your moral character?
If you choose to ignore signs that something may have been stolen, does that make receiving the item okay?
Most people who use chess engines (chess players
, not "computer chess enthusiasts" per say) have no idea that there is such a "computer chess community", so I think it's false and unfair to claim that they do not give a damn about something they're ignorant of.
I am speaking of the people who publicly state on this and/or other computer chess forums that they don't care if an engine is legitimate or not.
Most of them use Stockfish and then perhaps a friend says "get Strelka (or whatever)" and they google it, find Chess Owl or some other site and download it. They have no idea of the background information.
I know this is true. I did not find TalkChess at first when I first started to look for a free chess program to play against.
Even I (who have used engines since around 1999) had no idea until I registered on this forum and felt the intensely hostile response, even for innocent questions.
I have seen little hostility towards innocent questions.
It is very easy to buy/download an engine without being a member of talkchess, or keeping up to date with witchhunts for the latest suspected clone.
Again, I do know that. I was referring to those who do have an inkling of the facts.
I got some idea a couple years ago when I downloaded an engine from Ed's site and was redirected to a page talking about Rybka being unfairly accused - would this mean that Ed doesn't give a damn about the community he gave his life to?
It is quite a twist in logic to connect my respose to you to Ed's position on Rybka.
Probably not, he probably was more interested in fairness which is basically the position I was pushing as well.
Ed was/is interested in fairness. He also dislikes undeclared clones and close derivatives.
I'm beginning to get the impression (and sad disappointment) that the "computer chess community" is a very unfriendly, cold place, where chessplayers curious about engines need to walk on eggshells to avoid abuse or negativity.
I'll think I'll have to opt out of this site in future. Enjoy your time fellas.
My opinion of this place differs from yours. I can see how you can get a cold shoulder here if you declare that the end user, even when they know an engine is not what the "author" claims it to be, bears no responsibilty. After all, this is the place where authors and enthusiasts intersect and interact.