K I Hyams wrote:Have you forgotten that you are the "creature" who has referred to me as a "tosser" twice in the last 2 months or are you adding hypocrisy to your CV?
What's wrong? Does the truth hurt? You abused me, so don't complain.
Now you have added a lie. No, I didn't abuse you and I didn't complain at the time and I am not complaining now. I merely pointed out that some of your arguments were so weak that they invited damaging replies that harmed your cause. I used the analogy of "a loose cannon", a phrase that is perfectly acceptable in civilised society.
In addition and in order to make sure that you understood the phrase, I explained that it referred to the fact that unsecured cannon on sailing ships were prone to rolling around and causing damage. I also pointed out that it was relevant to the discussion. Your response was to simply reinforce your stance that I was a "tosser". Does that help?
I am aware of this phrase.....infact the best word to describe it is backfire
Cheers,
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Graham Banks wrote:The current members have made the decision not to test the Ippo engines.
We know. What if a mayority of the ccrl testers want to test it now? Or are you speaking for the mayority? Are you some kind of elected speaker? No offence, just wondering.
Haha, don't bash my Graham buddy on this one, he is just a little (a very big little) resistent against advices and own thinking/opinions, but Vas said its so and so... why not willingless follow the leader?... you know NZ hasn't seen the Queen for a while, they need a leader who cares about them $$$!
De Vos W wrote:Actually, you would be surprised how little it takes to bribe some people. A few free Rybka engines, a personal email form the programing god himself. The next thing you know, you are in the fanboy club. Right Banks?
(post)
De Vos W wrote:Actually, you would be surprised how little it takes to bribe some people from CCRL/CEGT. A few free Rybka engines, a personal email form the programing god himself. The next thing you know, you are in the fanboy club.
(post)
De Vos W wrote:Maybe in an thank-you Email from Vas?
At about this point in the thread I wasn't sure whether I was viewing the CCC or a game of Forumwarz.
I agree that Rybka should either be removed or houdini be included in the rating lists.
There are two arguments against this.
***argument 1: Rybka is "more original" than say strelka or houdini.
I respect Graham, and I think alot of unfair shots have been taken at him, and I would not be surprised if he hardened his stance against testing the fruit deriviatives.
But doesn't fabien's post suggest rybka is fruit derivative? What else would you need to say rbka = deriviative. Is there really more evidence against houdini or strelka?
****argument 2: lists are just a hobby and we can do what we want.
The difficulty here is that the lists are public and are used for advertisement. for example, You will find links to the ccrl list on the rybka page. Also many people will find those lists if they search under "chess ratings" and they will be led to believe rybka is the best and will be more likely to buy that engine. So even if it is not the intention of the list owner, the list does have the appearence of objectivity and will influence what people do.
Therefore, I think you have some responsibility to make the public lists as objective and honest as possible. Maybe it would be enough to put a disclaimer in the top, saying something like "we do not test some engines which appear to be stronger than the top engine on our list." Or "this is a hobby, and we have intentionally exlcuded some engines which appear to be stronger than our top engine. This list should not be used to inform purchasing decisions." That would be totally in keeping with your list being a hobby and not a tool to influence what people buy.
Anyway, I've always appreciated the work you put into the lists, graham et al., and look forward to what you do in the future.
best
Joseph
ozziejoe wrote:I agree that Rybka should either be removed or houdini be included in the rating lists.
There are two arguments against this.
***argument 1: Rybka is "more original" than say strelka or houdini.
I respect Graham, and I think alot of unfair shots have been taken at him, and I would not be surprised if he hardened his stance against testing the fruit deriviatives.
But doesn't fabien's post suggest rybka is fruit derivative? What else would you need to say rbka = deriviative. Is there really more evidence against houdini or strelka?
****argument 2: lists are just a hobby and we can do what we want.
The difficulty here is that the lists are public and are used for advertisement. for example, You will find links to the ccrl list on the rybka page. Also many people will find those lists if they search under "chess ratings" and they will be led to believe rybka is the best and will be more likely to buy that engine. So even if it is not the intention of the list owner, the list does have the appearence of objectivity and will influence what people do.
Therefore, I think you have some responsibility to make the public lists as objective and honest as possible. Maybe it would be enough to put a disclaimer in the top, saying something like "we do not test some engines which appear to be stronger than the top engine on our list." Or "this is a hobby, and we have intentionally exlcuded some engines which appear to be stronger than our top engine. This list should not be used to inform purchasing decisions." That would be totally in keeping with your list being a hobby and not a tool to influence what people buy.
Anyway, I've always appreciated the work you put into the lists, graham et al., and look forward to what you do in the future.
best
Joseph
The difficulty here is that the lists are public and are used for advertisement. for example, You will find links to the ccrl list on the rybka
page. Also many people will find those lists if they search under "chess ratings" and they will be led to believe rybka is the best and will
be more likely to buy that engine
Violation Computer-Chess Club Charter 4:
" 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations "
Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense.
De Vos W wrote:
The difficulty here is that the lists are public and are used for advertisement. for example, You will find links to the ccrl list on the rybka
page. Also many people will find those lists if they search under "chess ratings" and they will be led to believe rybka is the best and will
be more likely to buy that engine
Violation Computer-Chess Club Charter 4:
" 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations "
Hello De Vos,
Charter violations are of course of interest to me.
The mere posting of lists of rated engines by hobbyists do not represent flagrant so no charter violations here.
Thanks however for your alertness in bringing same to my attention.
