Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 15:42:11 01/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 2002 at 18:20:39, Ed Schröder wrote: >On January 09, 2002 at 23:35:05, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: > >>On January 09, 2002 at 23:25:00, pavel wrote: >> >>>On January 09, 2002 at 20:00:19, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On January 09, 2002 at 18:10:33, Sally Weltrop wrote: >>>> >>>>>nothing agaist Ed but his site does NOT have secured transaction. kind of wierd >>>>>considering it's 2002 & the potential for abuse abounds out there >>>> >>>>Okay, after the xx times the issue has come up again, I will bite this time... >>>> >>>>There is no abuse and I will tell you why I will leave things as they are >>>>although I fear it will be not satisfying or convincing for all but let me start >>>>with 2 firm statements: >>>> >>>>1) These so-called "secured transactions" are a farce. >>>> >>>>2) Believe it or not, my way of accepting orders is much safer than the >>>>so-called "secured transactions". >>>> >>>>Why? >>>> >>>>First of all you need to understand how an order on the Rebel page works, that >>>>is, you type the required info and then submit. From the information an email is >>>>created and directly send to my server all in a split of a second. My provider >>>>daily handles over 2 million emails. >>>> >>>>Now a hacker NEVER is going to search in million of emails, that is insane and >>>>total non productive. The volume of emails is a guarantee for that. >>>> >>>>No, hackers focus on those sites (protocols) where the REAL money is, the SAME >>>>companies who have introduced the "secured transactions". Millions of people >>>>daily order on-line via those companies, a real goldmine if the hacker is able >>>>to hack the protocol, tens of thousands of CC numbers are on the street. >>>> >>>>And how many times have you read such stories in the news? >>>> >>>>Too much I would say. >>>> >>>>Now since 1995 I am accepting on-line orders, no single case of fraud or hacking >>>>has taken place. All of this (as described above) has made me decide to stick to >>>>my way, because it is better. >>>> >>>>Futhermore my order page offers you (in case you still have doubts) to order by >>>>fax, I also provide a link to other companies who do support "secured >>>>transactions". >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>> >>> >>>I agree that those so-called secured trasaction are not that secured and are >>>more prone to hacks. But your way is nothing better either. But considering the >>>alternative, I would stick to your way of trading, because it's less >>>conventioanl. >>> >>>by the way, good luck on rebel century. >>>You just gave me a reason to buy rebel century and rebel tiger (too). >>>Pls, just dont port it under chessbase interface. ;) >>> >>>pavs >> >>On the contrary, I suggest the ACCP (Averno's Chess Communication Protocol) >>recently described in the winboard forum by Jose Carlos (author of Averno) >>to link a winboard engine to the Chessbase GUI. It work flawlessly like >>a charm. It does what it is supposed to do and you will never have a complain >>that Rebel is working with decreased strength. That's guaranteed. >> >>Rebel will be WB protocol II? > > >I don't even know what WB-II is, so I can't confirm. http://www.tim-mann.org/xboard/engine-intf.html It is the new version of the winboard protocol. I assume that it does not support it since Lex Loep said that Chesspartner doesn't yet. He does not see any necessity in doing it even though he thinks it will be easier. I still believe that it is a good idea to do it since the "winboard world" is certainly going in that direction (for instance, Crafty, YACE and many other strong engines support wb-II). Most of the new engines support wb-II and they do not support wb-I. For instance, the way that wb-I used to set a board was crappy. The new one uses FEN as it should. Lex said that engines that support setboard as FEN could still do it through an ini file. I am not yet convinced that this is a good idea. Please, if you are going to jump to windows, make sure that it is done right the first time and go for the protocol II (or compatibility with both) It requires almost no extra effort. Unless your are only interested in compatibility with the chesspartner interface. I can understand that, but I do not agree it will be good for Rebel and Chesspartner in the long run. Well, it is just a wish. After all, this is a free market. Regards, Miguel > >Yet a couple of WB extension are made exclusively for Rebel so that you still >can use all Rebel's Personality options, anti-GM, the Playing Style options, the >Club Player, Use the EOC / CAT chess knowledge among some other not standard WB >things. Naturally these extra's are only available in the Chesspartner interface >using a kind of pop-up window. > >Ed > > > > >>Miguel >>ACCP fan, I think that one day I will implement it in Gaviota, my poor engine. >>PS: If rebel is going to be a WB engine, it will probably be the first >>engine I will buy.
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.