Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 03:09:22 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 04:53:57, enrico carrisco wrote: >On February 13, 2006 at 03:33:38, Vasik Rajlich wrote: > >>On February 13, 2006 at 02:14:07, Ryan B. wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2006 at 21:55:40, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On February 12, 2006 at 17:16:43, Ryan B. wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 12, 2006 at 13:32:33, Peter Skinner wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>This is nothing more than a flagrant attempt in polling users about possible >>>>>>commercial payment possibilities for your program, and as such I am removing the >>>>>>thread. >>>>>> >>>>>>As per the charter: >>>>>> >>>>>>Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and >>>>>>post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response >>>>>>messages: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess >>>>>> 2. Are not abusive in nature >>>>>> 3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others >>>>>> 4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations >>>>>> 5. Are not of questionable legal status. >>>>>> >>>>>>What about rule #4 do you not understand? >>>>>> >>>>>>Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thank you for standing up to the Rybka hype machine. I believe that you have >>>>>nothing against Vas himself or Rybka and that you are simply making sure the >>>>>charter is followed in hope that someday this forum will go back to what it once >>>>>was. It is odd but I miss the days of Robert and Vincent arguing over pointless >>>>>side issues. At least then we where learning more about computer chess from 2 >>>>>of the best if the field. Now of there is a discussion about use of center pawn >>>>>structure in eval no one is interested in the discussion, it is pushed off the >>>>>first page in a day and there is only 1 non Rybka related thread on the first >>>>>page by morning. Ironically by the book builder of Rybka (That is not bad, just >>>>>funny to me. It was a very good post). I hope that at least a few other people >>>>>here feel the same way I do. >>>>> >>>>>Ryan >>>> >>>>Yes, the good old days with all the sloshy mud slinging. Much more exciting! >>>>(Is that what you meant?) >>>>S.Taylor >>> >>> >>>No, sorry if I was not clear. I miss reading about computer chess, learning >>>from the best, and people sharing ideas. This is the opposite of what Rybka is >>>about as Vas has gone out of his way to hide what Rybka is doing and does not >>>share ideas with the computer chess community. This is fine of course but >>>reading the hype and watching a group of people pay to beta test Rybka is not >>>fun for me. If others find this fun that is fine as well. I will just move to >>>a forum that better fits what I am looking for and continue doing what I do. I >>>hope this is more clear this time. >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Ryan Benitez >> >>You will find many technical posts of mine on this forum and in the archives. If >>you want more technical discussions here, start contributing. >> >>Vas > >Most of your "many technical posts" were before Rybka's huge 800+ ELO jump (in >roughly 1.5 years), i.e. post-CCT6 (Feb. 2004) where Rybka ranked 49th place. > >http://www.vrichey.de/cct6/index_table.htm > >But I'm surprised you jumped on this thread as the head-turning approach seems >to be your modus operandi concerning recent "technical" threads concerning Rybka >and its very unique behavior. > >However, since you seem to be in a "technical" mood at the moment, please >explain what Rybka is doing here: > >http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?485132 > >The thread has been posted and referenced a few times now and I would really >like to hear the "technical" explanation from the author. > >Do comment. > >Regards, > >-elc. http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?484761 I found this answer by Vasik. Pretty short but then it supports Dann's opinion that Vas isnt intentiously twisting the scores to confuse the users...
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.