Author: enrico carrisco
Date: 13:08:33 02/13/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2006 at 15:44:50, Vasik Rajlich wrote:
>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
>>
>
>Actually, I did see this the first time, and have fixed the bug in Beta 13d.
>Thanks.
>
>BTW - your node counting theory is pretty wild. To lower a node count, it's
>enough to just do printf ("nodes %d", nodes / C);.
>
>Vas
Of course there are several ways to do it, some easier than others but all of
which make no sense as they are deliberate -- which leads to what my real
question was -- what is the purpose of doing it at all?
Anyway, thank you for your reply. I'm glad it was just a bug and nothing more
serious as one could surmise.
Regards,
-elc.
>
>>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.
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.