free Aquarium

[Rodolfo Leoni]

The best thing you can do is to post your opinion about it in the original topic by Mike Byrne. It's not difficult to find. Could be at page 5 or 6 on this forum.

Do you mean this topic?
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66373

It is pure amsfish , assembly is not something I should tinker with.

You read the opening post and was misled by it. So now you know.

So when Michael Rohleder asked me what engines I was using what should have been the correct answer, assuming that I wanted him to understand I was using that **whatever it is** ?
"Something that Mike Byrne built?"
"Asmfish but not by Mike Byrne?"
"The result of a -make- command typed by Mike Byrne?"
Or what else? And are you sure he would understand a cripted answer?

Doesn't matter. Your hammering made things a lot confused. I only hope Michael isn't working to make compatible an engine that nobody'll use.

[syzygy]

The best thing you can do is to post your opinion about it in the original topic by Mike Byrne. It's not difficult to find. Could be at page 5 or 6 on this forum.

Do you mean this topic?
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66373

It is pure amsfish , assembly is not something I should tinker with.

You read the opening post and was misled by it. So now you know.

So when Michael Rohleder asked me what engines I was using what should have been the correct answer, assuming that I wanted him to understand I was using that **whatever it is** ?
"Something that Mike Byrne built?"
"Asmfish but not by Mike Byrne?"
"The result of a -make- command typed by Mike Byrne?"
Or what else? And are you sure he would understand a cripted answer?

What has Mike Byrne got to do with all of that?

I corrected an important misattribution. You could have left it at that. In particular if you don't care about correct attributions in the first place.

[Rodolfo Leoni]

The best thing you can do is to post your opinion about it in the original topic by Mike Byrne. It's not difficult to find. Could be at page 5 or 6 on this forum.

Do you mean this topic?
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66373

It is pure amsfish , assembly is not something I should tinker with.

You read the opening post and was misled by it. So now you know.

So when Michael Rohleder asked me what engines I was using what should have been the correct answer, assuming that I wanted him to understand I was using that **whatever it is** ?
"Something that Mike Byrne built?"
"Asmfish but not by Mike Byrne?"
"The result of a -make- command typed by Mike Byrne?"
Or what else? And are you sure he would understand a cripted answer?

What has Mike Byrne got to do with all of that?

I corrected an important misattribution. You could have left it at that. In particular if you don't care about correct attributions in the first place.

YOU CORRECTED WHAT ? AND WHO AUTHORIZED TO MAKE CORRECTIONS? ARE YOU MY TEACHER?

Hear me, Mr. "I know everything", next time you doesn'tlike something I write just look elsewhere. Right? Look elsewhere.

GO AND CORRECT YOUR BAD EDUCATION.

[syzygy]

Hear me, Mr. "I know everything", next time you doesn'tlike something I write just look elsewhere. Right? Look elsewhere.

This is an internet forum. If you write something uninformed, you can expect it to be corrected.

Next time you could check the facts yourself before protesting ad infinitum against a correction...

[Rodolfo Leoni]

Hear me, Mr. "I know everything", next time you doesn'tlike something I write just look elsewhere. Right? Look elsewhere.

This is an internet forum. If you write something uninformed, you can expect it to be corrected.

Next time you could check the facts yourself before protesting ad infinitum against a correction...

Keep in your mind that you are not God. Your attitude to show your superior knowledge to humiliate someone makes you an inche tall being. You wanted a large audience to show how great is the power in your hands to annihilate a mere mortal who's only guilty to walk through the Greek Theoi land.

And, BTW, it's still the asmfish version by Mike Byrne.

[Ras]

BTW, it's still the asmfish version by Mike Byrne.

Maybe it's from Mike Byrne, but not by Mike Byrne?

[syzygy]

My "superior knowledge" derives from the humility to check my sources.

[Rodolfo Leoni]

BTW, it's still the asmfish version by Mike Byrne.

Maybe it's from Mike Byrne, but not by Mike Byrne?

Agreed. First there was the need to give a fast and univoque answer, second, I'm not talking in my mother tongue, third, it's irrelevant for the purposes of discussion, which was the possibility to include it (and not the releases by Mohammed Li) into the free Aquarium structure.

Thanks for the only real correction I needed. From instead of by.

[Ovyron]

In the nature of (competitive) chess is something like "I see something that you dont see"

Yes! That's the nature of chess and many other strategy games, if not all. What about a cooperative chess variant, then? When you share your ideas with your opponent as you play them? Or maybe one were white and black don't belong to the players, but they agree on what moves are played on the board, and the point is to produce an interesting game?

I'm serious, this Sandbox Chess could have some potential, Rodolfo and me would play a game but instead of trying to beat each other we'd join forces to attempt to produce the strongest continuation from both sides, sounds interesting...

I see two ways to solve this:
- make a standalone version. (with all the technical implications)
or
- give every user his own trees. (or something in between like a "main tree" and a (inherited) user tree etc)

I like the solution of "Private Trees", that you analyze and build on your own without anyone peeking. Then you can add an option to make them public, so people that don't mind sharing after the games are over contribute to the main tree. Possibly with "make public after move x", so that people that still want to keep their opening analysis private can still share the rest of the game.

[mroh]

Thank you very much (again!) for you feedback!

I'm serious, this Sandbox Chess could have some potential, Rodolfo and me would play a game but instead of trying to beat each other we'd join forces to attempt to produce the strongest continuation from both sides, sounds interesting...

Yeah, call me naive, but thats how I have always handled correspondence chess since Ive been doing it with postcards as a kid.
For me its more about finding "the truth" or something really interesting and have a good game than to win, because to win, the opponent has to make a mistake...
Not long ago I read an interesting article from Arno Nickel (I think he is still in the top 20 ICCF) where he wrote that correspondence players are always seeking the "perfect game" (unfortunate its in german) and I think that hits the nail ...

Sure, its always nice to win, but if I would like to have more of the "fighting" (and winning) aspect of chess, I would play OTB, which is pure fighting and destroying your opponent, as Bobby F. and Garry K. once said.

And of course this mind setting is (or was?) also in freeAquarium where one of the ideas is to analyze with lots of people (and engines) in a distributed way to find interesting positions and moves, create different opening books and let them play against each other etc...

But maybe, this idea is simply an illusion of an old, naive and stupid man ^^

I like the solution of "Private Trees", that you analyze and build on your own without anyone peeking. Then you can add an option to make them public, so people that don't mind sharing after the games are over contribute to the main tree. Possibly with "make public after move x", so that people that still want to keep their opening analysis private can still share the rest of the game.

Yes, I also tend to this solution, because for me a standalone version wouldn't make sense, I simply don't need such a thing, because I need something distributed where I can start several engines on several different machines.
Also, with a standalone version lots of technical trouble would arise which are not fun to solve (for me), but hard work. I do this kind of stuff for money, I don't want that for having fun ^^

The "Private Trees":
Yes, very much possible, most work for this would be in the GUI, I think, the backend stuff is relative easy. Maybe some details like "what to do if the user publishes stuff that is already there etc" needed to be make, but much more importantly my problem is this:
Why should I implement something to help different users to hide their analysis where there are no users and no analysis? We don't need this with only a hand full users.

Yeah, maybe its "chicken and egg" problem, but I don't think so, because I don't think people are seeing this problem without trying this software...

Without going to much in detail (in public), Im currently a bit frustrated, even thinking about continuing this project just for me, as it once was...

But, well maybe I simply need a break and/or have to many expectations ^^