Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:37:28 04/10/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2000 at 02:35:10, Ed Schröder wrote: >On April 09, 2000 at 22:37:31, Pete Galati wrote: > >>On April 09, 2000 at 20:10:11, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On April 09, 2000 at 16:22:30, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>> >>>>On April 09, 2000 at 15:52:39, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 08, 2000 at 20:09:38, Bertil Eklund wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On April 08, 2000 at 19:49:37, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Ritter Rost" happens to be two German words meaning "Knight Rust." I don't know >>>>>>>the significance of this, but I doubt it's a "real" name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've sent him e-mail asking him to confirm the legality of his posts, and I've >>>>>>>posted below asking him to back up his (?) accusations with some evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Right now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that the posts >>>>>>>are legal and that he can present such evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If the posts are actually illegal, I will delete the threads. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If the accusations aren't validated, I will ask that people stop posting to the >>>>>>>threads. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>-Tom >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi! >>>>>> >>>>>>I have no idea who this person are, but I'm very familiar with the e-mail, and I >>>>>>don't liked it. >>>>>> >>>>>>Bertil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand: are you saying that the SSDF really received this email from >>>>>Ossi Weiner? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>>Hi! >>>> >>>>Yes I and Thoralf received it and we don't liked it. >>>>I guarantee that I or Thoralf Carlsson haven't published it. >>>> >>>>Bertil >>> >>> >>>OK, so the hypothesis that Ritter Rost's quote of Ossi Weiner is a fake is now >>>discarded. >>> >>>The email from Ossi is REAL. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>But why is it circulating? If Ritter Rost is not one of the people on the "CC >>to" list (is he?) then why is it circulating, and why would it belong here at >>CCC? I didn't see any good explanation for why it was posted here. >> >>Pete > >The email in question was send to 20-30 people (including me) using CC. >The thing is real. I assume the email was forwarded multiple times finally >ending up here. I believe the group email was posted 3-4 weeks ago but I >can't check the exact date because I immediately put the thing in my trash >mailbox. > >Ed Let's hit two topics: (1) I believe the 'concept' presented in the email is ridiculous on the surface. And I don't believe that they would have any legal grounds for action if someone posts results between a program they bought (IE Shredder) and another program. Certainly I would feel totally free, here in the USA, to post such results under the freedom of speech guarantee of our constitution. If the SSDF wants to sent me their results and have me make them public, I am willing to do so. (2) I think the idea of posting private email here is equally ridiculous as it violates everything net-wise we have been doing for many years. It is a no-no to do so. And in fact, it violates international copyright laws, as even private email is subject to copyright law unless the author specifically gives up that right in the email in question. (ie if he had said, "post this wherever you see fit, you have my permission.") This "hiding behind a rock" mentality is no good. If the SSDF testing is flawed, or if someone is cheating with the autoplayer code, then _that_ is the thing that should be exposed, rather than hiding behind a rock and pretending that nothing is happening... Auto232 is a piece of trash anyway, and should not be relied on to provide any meaningful data, because the chess engines can do so many things to corrupt the results. Time to move on to something better that uses TCP/IP, and an O/S that doesn't let two programs corrupt each other's memory, if the results are to be believed. TSRs belong in the trash heap today. In the world of windows, winboard would make a good way to do this testing, if everyone would junk auto232 and use the winboard protocol. Then there is _no_ way that one engine can influence the other, since winboard will run a match with one engine on one processor, the other on a different processor... Then you win or lose based on your program's skill, not some piece of trash interface that is open to manipulation... These misbehaving rumors have been around long enough that it is time to put 'em in the trash heap along with the interface protocol that allows them to happen...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.