hash collisions

[Rebel]

Suite yourself. I would say it is prudent, and good strategy!

Moderator moderate yourself, if you can't resign.

In what way does the quoted posting violate the charter, then???

Countless examples in this thread.

[hgm]

So why do you quote this one, then? Don't eat your heart out, quote anything I posted here that you think violated the charter. Or is this just your way of launching an unmotivated personal attack on moderation?

And better not come up with crap like that "Then writing chess programs is the wrong business for you." would be an insult, or violates the charter...

[chrisw]

So why do you quote this one, then? Don't eat your heart out, quote anything I posted here that you think violated the charter. Or is this just your way of launching an unmotivated personal attack on moderation?

And better not come up with crap like that "Then writing chess programs is the wrong business for you." would be an insult, or violates the charter...

It is objectively an insult to strike at the core identity of a professional. It runs alongside typical core identity insults made on these forums, Bob being one of the main culprits, to take somebody’s job or career and tell them they should not be in it or they are no good at it whatever.

Like telling a doctor he should not be in medicine, a lawyer he is a bad lawyer and so on. These are deliberate insults designed specifically to be hurtful by striking at core of the person you want to hurt.

The target may or may not feel hurt by it, but it’s still objectively an insult, a designed targeted nasty personal insult. Me, I just marvel at the character of the person who delivers core identity abuse. I would guess they do it (here) as a counter reaction to their feeling that their core is under threat, so I see it as a fragile response by a fragile person. In the current case this type of insult was compounded by signalling green lights for mobbing, which in turn indicates a bully trying to use others to create a social exclusion. Not a pretty picture.

[hgm]

No, it is not. It was a justified conclusion from your preceding apparent rejection of speed-enhancing techniques because they could occasionaly result in a very poor move. And it came with an extensive explanation of why in chess programming such an attitude would not work. The inclusion of the word "then ..." clearly shows it to be a conclusion, and not an unconditional statement. It does not claim you are unfit for chess programming; it only says that your previous statement was incompatible with this.

A doctor who professes he would never prescribe antibiotics should be told to drop practicing medicine at the earliest possible moment.

It is NOT against the charter to point out someone's claims are false or inconsistent. No matter how much insulted that person would feel by this. That is his problem.

[chrisw]

Now that was pretty rambling and uninformative. What bad thing has happened in this thread. There is zero doubt that no software is bug-free. Too many giants in computer science harp on this. There is little disagreement that bugs that produce execution issues (crashes, hangs, bad/illegal moves, etc) should be fixed. There is some debate about other small types of accepted bugs. One simple example is pseudo-legal move generation. You can search at one illegal position for every pseudo-legal move that is not legal. Is that seriously different from what HGM wrote? NEITHER causes any bad move to be displayed nor any crash, etc.

Why we have to argue about actual facts that are well-known is food for thought. But of course, feel free to show me any computer science authority that says large programs can be written 100% bug-free. THEN there would be room for debate. I've not seen any, but that doesn't say there are none. Just like not seeing any evidence of bugs doesn't mean there are none. (sound familiar).

A partial search of a haystack for needles neither proves there are no more needles than it proves there are more needles.

You are only using one half of the logic haystack/needle because of a BELIEF that there are inevitably more needles. In other words, a circular argument, the premise is the conclusion.

I say two, er three or four, things:

1. It is possible, in a defined system such as chess, to design sufficient destructive tests, including internal self-verification, and after fifty years history of the hobby, to find everything that could go wrong. And for those things that are inclined to go wrong to have built in robust defences.

2. Of extreme importance is design team or programmer ATTITUDE to bugs. Programmers who think bugs are inevitable makes a lot less effort at being bug free and tend to leave fixing (or often arguing its somebody else’s fault) to a case by case basis for the future.

3. The belief in the inevitable infinite nature of bugs in computer chess is also predicated by the concept of high complexity of computer chess. I argue that this concept is self-serving, it suits us to believe we are struggling with and conquering complex domains. Hey, some people even build their identities around this notion of themselves and the degree of the complexity. I posit the opposite, computer chess programming is fairly straightforward, bounded and made easier year on year.

[chrisw]

You know what worked great on the Rybka Forum? Drama Llama: a subforum created for member insults, where people could say anything to each other without repercussions, and when people started insulting each other, their discussions were moved there, to a place where anyone wanting to see those posts could add themselves to the board (unlike posts moved to Talkchess moderation.)

It was offered to pair Bob-hgm to transfer and continue the personal aspects over to CTF. Neither was interested. That tells me the objective of their green-lighted mobbing was social exclusion.

It turned out that when fights were allowed, there wasn't much interest in fighting, and the main threads of the board were free of insults, those that insisted on attacking each other could do so without bothering others, and everyone was happy.

(at least until the legendary battles between Alan and bob, that became a mess that couldn't be moderated due to volume, but those led to the forum basically dying anyway, so few people remained to care about it on the aftermath)

[Ovyron]

It was offered to pair Bob-hgm to transfer and continue the personal aspects over to CTF. Neither was interested. That tells me the objective of their green-lighted mobbing was social exclusion.

CTF isn't a good allegory, recently the coronavirus thread was purged and members told to stop the insults, etc. etc.

[Rebel]

So why do you quote this one, then? Don't eat your heart out, quote anything I posted here that you think violated the charter. Or is this just your way of launching an unmotivated personal attack on moderation?

And put oil on the fire ?

I prefer not.

[hgm]

Your whole appearence here had no other intention than to do just that; so far you have said nothing on-topic here.

So, like I said, just unfounded moderator bashing, and when you are challenged to account for it, you cannot deliver.

[Rebel]

Your whole appearence here had no other intention than to do just that; so far you have said nothing on-topic here.

http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 07#p830807

And other contributions.