Graham Banks wrote:
Who is the "author" and why isn't he the one doing any work? Did he ever release a compile, or is he just a coward who distributes someone else's code and leaves the deceived to proclaim him as a hero?
It's a tragedy that we are depending on free supporters who offer their help. You just cannot do it all by yourself. Look, when I saw the databases in the package of Rybka that I had bought I knew at the instant that these helpers had not done their homework. It looked terrible. But this isnt Vas. It's certain supporters. How could you avoid it on the net?
Therefore we MUST introduce a sort of ethical agreement between the different protagonists so that crime no longer pays off.
THe anon aspect is absolute crap. In a sport! It's terrible that we have members who seem to enjoy the crap.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Graham Banks wrote:
Who is the "author" and why isn't he the one doing any work? Did he ever release a compile, or is he just a coward who distributes someone else's code and leaves the deceived to proclaim him as a hero?
I seem to remember that there is some rule in this forum that requires the real name of members to be listed in order to participate in discussions. Perhaps there should be a rule requiring the real name of program authors to be listed in order for that program to be discussed/linked to/etc. . If the authors feel the need to be anonymous because of fear of attribution, then the program is not appropriate for discussion here. And if there is no fear of attribution, then why be anonymous?
-Sam
You should make haste and retify such a rule as fast as possible, because if you delay too much, there will be no [people left in this forum when the rule is ratified.
"Well, I´m just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh Lord, please don´t let me be misunderstood."
Graham Banks wrote:
Who is the "author" and why isn't he the one doing any work? Did he ever release a compile, or is he just a coward who distributes someone else's code and leaves the deceived to proclaim him as a hero?
I seem to remember that there is some rule in this forum that requires the real name of members to be listed in order to participate in discussions. Perhaps there should be a rule requiring the real name of program authors to be listed in order for that program to be discussed/linked to/etc. . If the authors feel the need to be anonymous because of fear of attribution, then the program is not appropriate for discussion here. And if there is no fear of attribution, then why be anonymous?
-Sam
Sam, with love from Rolf. Let your idea be the fertilizer of a new and honest computerchess.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
BubbaTough wrote:If the authors feel the need to be anonymous because of fear of attribution, then the program is not appropriate for discussion here. And if there is no fear of attribution, then why be anonymous?
-Sam
Not appropriate for testing either, except by those who don't mind wasting precious cpu time.
BubbaTough wrote:If the authors feel the need to be anonymous because of fear of attribution, then the program is not appropriate for discussion here. And if there is no fear of attribution, then why be anonymous?
-Sam
Not appropriate for testing either, except by those who don't mind wasting precious cpu time.
I can see thousands running uphill and joining us! We can do it Graham!!!
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf and Graham please stop this witch hunting of the Robbolito authors. What proof do you have that they did something wrong, and if they did, it should not concern you.
Right now I would be more worried about the fact that the ''Big Boss'' of Rybka calls Robbo a clone without any proof or evidence for that matter. So he sends people like you to to spam and cause trouble around here...
Damir wrote:Rolf and Graham please stop this witch hunting of the Robbolito authors. What proof do you have that they did something wrong, and if they did, it should not concern you.
Right now I would be more worried about the fact that the ''Big Boss'' of Rybka calls Robbo a clone without any proof or evidence for that matter. So he sends people like you to to spam and cause trouble around here...
It's not the Rybka that we all know, but it is Rybka. It is not Rybka 3, despite what Vas said.
You've either been sucked in or you're part of the "rotten army".
I hope it's not the latter.
And by the way, what authors? Who are "they"?
Damir wrote:Rolf and Graham please stop this witch hunting of the Robbolito authors. What proof do you have that they did something wrong, and if they did, it should not concern you.
Right now I would be more worried about the fact that the ''Big Boss'' of Rybka calls Robbo a clone without any proof or evidence for that matter. So he sends people like you to to spam and cause trouble around here...
Damir, hi!
All we ask for is a true name with address and no more anonon nonsense. BTW I always support suppressed people especially from ex-Yugoslavia. Dont even think that we were opponents. But tell them to quit teir hiding places. We can talk it all over IMO.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Is it stronger than the most recent version of Robbolito,before this one?
I mean, does it look like Robbolito might improve at a fast rate (and in that case, securely overtake Rybka)?
. If the authors feel the need to be anonymous because of fear of attribution, then the program is not appropriate for discussion here. And if there is no fear of attribution, then why be anonymous?
