Author: Jason Williamson
Date: 10:06:58 04/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2000 at 09:37:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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... Here,here. Of course, god help the various chess servers if CB and other chess program companies have wiboard connectivity.
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.