Thanks Swami!

[fern]

Chris is completely uninterested in this forum, even in chess computers in general. If he would want to comeback, he could. But he does not.
My best
Fernando

[gerold]

I was surprised twice. The download for King of Kings was not all that large and only took me a couple minutes. And the GUI is compact, nice and neat. Cant wait to do some playing. But if its ranked around 2500 and there are no other levels, im afraid i will get slaughtered. Evidently im not the caliber player you are- nowhere near it unfortunately- but i do the best i can. My problem is at 58 my mind doesnt work as fast as it did 30-35 years ago when i was a fair player. But again, thanks so much.

Very Best To You,

Its a nice program. I have been playing it in Arena.

Gerold.

[GS]

i think you can reduce the strength of CSTAL and it would be an interesting opponent due to the sacrifycing playing style and the fact that it plays much like a human beeing.
you never know if is doing a bluff or not.

What is the reason for the very long ban for Whittington, the programmer of CSTal? How could Whittington be banned in the first place, as a programmer? I think he's the only programmer ever for having been banned, which is a scandal IMO. Why not publicly clarify that Chris is welcomed here in CCC? He was a friend of mine.

Why do you think he is banned and what has this to do with that thread?

Guenther

[Rolf]

i think you can reduce the strength of CSTAL and it would be an interesting opponent due to the sacrifycing playing style and the fact that it plays much like a human beeing.
you never know if is doing a bluff or not.

What is the reason for the very long ban for Whittington, the programmer of CSTal? How could Whittington be banned in the first place, as a programmer? I think he's the only programmer ever for having been banned, which is a scandal IMO. Why not publicly clarify that Chris is welcomed here in CCC? He was a friend of mine.

Why do you think he is banned and what has this to do with that thread?

Guenther

Questions of the month! Sensational! Thanks so much.

I answer this for several reasons:

- you always helped me out when I had questions about your chess data

- the questions allow explanations about the past of CCC for newcomers

- with my answer I want to support your run for the elections

As I have said about Graham, the data oriented approach in all respects of questions in conflicts of communication on the net is the only helpful, reasonable and peaceful for a true solution. The question is already part of the answer and without questions a conflict might last unneccessarily.

What Fern wrote is false insofar as I myself got from Whittington that he was/is banned. Without knowing the actual truth it is also clear for real men that it's a difference if you are not really banned but return like a beaten dog or if the climate in a group has changed for the better so that brillant authors think that their participation could be of any good.

Here is a second fault in Fern's reasoning. ChrisW didnt abstain because he was desinterested in computerchess as such but only in that sort of that he thought wouldnt lead to satisfactory results. Sure in the past years the focus was successfully directed on more hardware and less chess. CSTal however lives on surprising ideas as I can read here and there. It's called a more human approach.

The real truth is this. Whittington didnt lose interest in computerchess but in the people who who are successfully involved in the actual computerchess. That's what he basically wrote to me for years.

Perhaps now the answer could be understood what this should have to do with the thread about CSTal. It's a real pain to read about the interesting aspects in a program without even mentioning the characteristical of its author.

Chris was a strong chessplayer himself. He's a brillant thinker and without these factors CSTal wouldnt exist at all. Because it is selfunderstood that it needs personality to seek solutions apart from the huge and successful mainstream in computerchess approach. Certainly such a person outside mainstream is not everybody's darling. More so if one isnt a saint at all. If one has faults like all humans. These faults weigh much heavier if you abstain from mainstream and claim of having found "the" truth. And sure a strong stamina becomes more an obstacle in personal relations if you are on a wrong track with false hypotheses. But also here it is true that you cannot have it all at the same time. Also brillancy isnt always faultless. That's why I prefer folks as mods who ask questions and who know that we are all only too human to be perfect. However a programmer in his art must seek the impossible. But that can be painful if you are living in the wrong times...

[GS]

i think you can reduce the strength of CSTAL and it would be an interesting opponent due to the sacrifycing playing style and the fact that it plays much like a human beeing.
you never know if is doing a bluff or not.

What is the reason for the very long ban for Whittington, the programmer of CSTal? How could Whittington be banned in the first place, as a programmer? I think he's the only programmer ever for having been banned, which is a scandal IMO. Why not publicly clarify that Chris is welcomed here in CCC? He was a friend of mine.

Why do you think he is banned and what has this to do with that thread?

Guenther

Questions of the month! Sensational! Thanks so much.

I answer this for several reasons:

- you always helped me out when I had questions about your chess data

- the questions allow explanations about the past of CCC for newcomers

- with my answer I want to support your run for the elections

As I have said about Graham, the data oriented approach in all respects of questions in conflicts of communication on the net is the only helpful, reasonable and peaceful for a true solution. The question is already part of the answer and without questions a conflict might last unneccessarily.

What Fern wrote is false insofar as I myself got from Whittington that he was/is banned.

How long ago? ;-) There is no ban over years and I wonder why you bring this up now?

Perhaps now the answer could be understood what this should have to do with the thread about CSTal.

Nope. The thread was about 'Thanks Swami!' before it was hijacked.
Anyhow it is clear that Whittington is not banned...

Guenther

[swami]

i think you can reduce the strength of CSTAL and it would be an interesting opponent due to the sacrifycing playing style and the fact that it plays much like a human beeing.
you never know if is doing a bluff or not.

What is the reason for the very long ban for Whittington, the programmer of CSTal? How could Whittington be banned in the first place, as a programmer? I think he's the only programmer ever for having been banned, which is a scandal IMO. Why not publicly clarify that Chris is welcomed here in CCC? He was a friend of mine.

ChrisW is not banned, Maybe he was banned once several years ago. After each election, banned members become active because their accounts get restored.I guess he chose not to post here.

[Graham Banks]

ChrisW is not banned, Maybe he was banned once several years ago. After each election, banned members become active because their accounts get restored.I guess he chose not to post here.

I know nothing about a ban on Chris Whittington, so I suspect you're right Swami.
I'm quite certain that the moderators would have been told about any life bans.

Regards, Graham.

[MikeB]

i think you can reduce the strength of CSTAL and it would be an interesting opponent due to the sacrifycing playing style and the fact that it plays much like a human beeing.
you never know if is doing a bluff or not.

What is the reason for the very long ban for Whittington, the programmer of CSTal? How could Whittington be banned in the first place, as a programmer? I think he's the only programmer ever for having been banned, which is a scandal IMO. Why not publicly clarify that Chris is welcomed here in CCC? He was a friend of mine.

I'm not sure - but I do agree with you that any ban he has served is long enough imo.

[Michael Sherwin]

Well, someone get a hold of him and invite him back!

[mclane]

i am playing a chess game against him in the moment. i could invite or tell him. i did not read this thread, somehow it looks hijacked.