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.
What is wrong with moving posts where they belong, irrespective if they are annoying to people?
The engine Origins section is not a place to isolate posts by people that cannot bhave according to the standards of normal decency, right? The moderator forum is for that. Engine Origins is a serious forum, where exactly the same standards apply as in other forum sections.
I don't see any rationalization for a policy like "If you all behave decently, we will allow it here, and otherwise it goes to the Engine-Origins forum". Like the latter is a "Barbarians and Savages section". I don't think we should have such a section, btw. Deletion is as good a treatment as any for posts that would satisfy admission criteria for such a section...
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...
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?
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."
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.
mar wrote:+1 count me as well (+1 to Tom as I prefer thread view
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".
+777
Seriously, I have to agree. All those +/- no content posts look so childish
and I would welcome, if this tendency would vanish again(I have not much hope though...)
mar wrote:+1 count me as well (+1 to Tom as I prefer thread view
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
Seriously, those posts contain more content than they are given credit for. In a face to face conversation, if the listener agrees with the speaker, he/she nods their head. Since there are no physical cues that convey agreement in this sort of format, I find that '+1' an acceptable substitute.
mar wrote:+1 count me as well (+1 to Tom as I prefer thread view
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".
