Moderator: Ras
velmarin wrote:You always end up talking about the same stories.
issue after issue.
They have never asked anyone can do in this world,
one amateur, not professional,
when you want to make your own engine and has 7 or 8 free programs to work.
And you post after post, one can speak of the same.
It's boring.
I do not understand the translation of his words.Roger Brown wrote:velmarin wrote:You always end up talking about the same stories.
issue after issue.
They have never asked anyone can do in this world,
one amateur, not professional,
when you want to make your own engine and has 7 or 8 free programs to work.
And you post after post, one can speak of the same.
It's boring.
I must say that the blood is hardly pounding in my veins after your latest literary foray...
Later.
Nice one, Oscar WildeRoger Brown wrote:velmarin wrote:You always end up talking about the same stories.
issue after issue.
They have never asked anyone can do in this world,
one amateur, not professional,
when you want to make your own engine and has 7 or 8 free programs to work.
And you post after post, one can speak of the same.
It's boring.
I must say that the blood is hardly pounding in my veins after your latest literary foray...
Later.
velmarin wrote:That engine Oscar wilde wrote that,
or yourself, my friend.
You are one more critical,
Tell me that makes a newcomer to this world and wants to make a program.
To ask for permission to all of you?
Does one port one?
Bored, bored you.
And he has arguments.
Only witticisms and criticisms, critiques, and reviews.
one of these professionals ran a crappy software on x100 hardware winning WCC, second will win WCC for Jokers, the third seems the best, but is still unable to improve on open source textbooks, taking all the ideas from them probably badlyvelmarin wrote:seems that the American lang Amstrond ,
lose seven tours, hehe
Not only the Spanish Contador, lost one ....
It's hours this community to step forward,
and tell these big, big chess software professionals
giving an opportunity for new generations who can take or not there is,
but there is written and you can not look away.
Let something new comes up, and bury the old.
The memory is very nice.
Do you not see the contradiction? Rather than getting DQ'ed, they simply won't enter in the first place... And we are right back to square zero. We need a solution that everyone can live with, but which protects the integrity of the event and its rules. It is not as easy as one might suspect.Graham Banks wrote:Easy - they get disqualified, just as an athlete refusing to pee or provide a blood sample for a doping test would face severe consequences. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander. It's all about fairness and equal treatment.bob wrote:The Rybka investigation took several years. Hardly practical to "select 2 each year and commit several years of effort to examine them." If you require source, you will immediately run into trouble, because (a) commercial programmers; (b) authors with original private engines; (c) authors with non-original private engines; will, in general, rebel at the idea of having someone look at their code and discover any secrets they might have...Graham Banks wrote:Which is why I made the suggestion of selecting a couple of participants at random each year and putting them under the same scrutiny that Rybka was subjected to.bob wrote:It seems that a few can't get past the Rolf-inspired "If everyone is not investigated, Vas should not have been and he should be restored as a competitor once more."
It is an argument, but a very weak one. Who is going to investigate EVERY program? Who has the time? Or who is going to pay for the time?
This is NOT an easy issue to resolve... Be much nicer if things were as they were back in the 70's and 80's, where ethical behavior was simply something everyone did...
This discussion has hit no nerves with me. One can not force anyone to compete. For several years, it was not uncommon (back in the days of the WMCCC events) for the commercial winner in year X to not participate in year X+1 so that they can use the win in year X as advertisement. There is nothing one can do about that.mcostalba wrote:It is not who wins the tournament but who partecipates that makes the tournament a world championship.bob wrote: Simple question. WCCC Hong Kong. Do you REALLY believe anything there was better than deep thought? It was the ONLY program with a real GM-level rating. But a comm failure cost it one game. You attach too much significance to the "world computer chess championship" title...
This is a very simple concept to grasp, but people seems to miss this point. So I have to think this thread has hit some nerves, this disussion about ICGA is a kind of a violated taboo, perhaps the time is still not come to discuss these arguments without be called crazy, girl dumped, under drugs and so on (note that I have never personally attacked none, neverthless I was named by people that think of themself to be rationale and well mannered).
Anyhow the problem is real and will not disappear just insulting the opponents. If also for the future ICGA will fail to attract (not "allow to enter") the strongest engines will shoot itself in the foot. To be "World Champion" of the year will be (as is already now) just a marketing label to attract the casual Joe user that knows nothing about engines, just wants to buy a strong chess software to play with.